UKH

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/climber-reinhold-messner-stripped-of-... 

Truly the world has gone mad......

In reply to Barrington:

Yes, I saw this a couple of months ago, when the researcher had mentioned of his trepidation about releasing his findings, knowing it would send a few shockwaves through the climbing community (very cliché sorry). However, as was discussed then, there's something to say about climbing a mountain, and standing on the very top of the peak. A few times I've stopped short of the true summit, not bothering to stand on the extra metre or so, knowing that all the hard work was over, and I'd climbed the route/peak. 

I'm sure Mr Messner wouldn't want to be stripped of his titles, but anyone in the world of alpinism knows his prowess isn't any less because of these findings.

In reply to Barrington:

The ultimate in nitpicking really. Like, who cares?

In reply to Barrington:

I think that this can all be summed up with the following extract from the article: 'Mr Jurgalski conducts his research on his computer at his home in the southern German city of Lörrach and has never been to the Himalayas.'

In reply to BRILLBRUM:

However if you delve more into Jurgalski's research, he's spent 10 years producing his findings, and is apparently considered one of the worlds leading Himalayan chroniclers. I would imagine he wouldn't have published this unless he was 100% convinced of the research, which has now been confirmed by Guinness, which apart from being a lovely pint, I'm sure have their own rigorous methods before confirmation as well.

Elizabeth Hawley never climbed a mountain herself, but was considered to be the authority on successful ascents or not. 

In reply to Derry:

Be that as it may, "professional nitpicker" does seem like a rather sad choice of a vocation

In reply to Derry:

It's a fair point well made, and I agree on the ascent data too

In reply to Derry:

Nobody's saying he's not right, just that he's an asshole.

In reply to Barrington:

Good analysis here: https://explorersweb.com/just-collecting-8000m-peaks-no-longer-has-any-real...

In reply to Barrington:

Damn! I've realised in all the years I've been up Snowdon, sorry Yr Wyddfa, I've never actually stood on the  summit cairn. Better get back up there quick I suppose otherwise I'll look like a fraud.

In reply to Barrington:

What is really stupid about all this is:

How accurate do we expect Mr Messner's memory of his observations to be? He may have seen basecamp as he was practically at the summit, but didn't notice that he could no longer see it when on the summit.

Our memories do strange things, and gaps are filled with images we have that makes sense to us. So even if he recalls seeing basecamp at the actual summit, it doesn't mean he did. This is just how our brains work.

Any phycologists or interrogator would know the "evidence" used here has no value in deciphering whether Messner actually made it to the summit or not. And since no-one really cares (apart from Mr Jurgalski and the Guinness guys) if he was 65m off or not, just leave him as the record holder.

In reply to montyjohn:

According to the link presented above, he actually is the Guinness guys - i.e. they employ him to validate ascents. So it sounds like it is just him and Google Earth.

"For four decades, renowned German chronicler Eberhard Jurgalski has been collecting climbing data on the world’s 8,000’ers and has been publishing data on 8000ers.com since 2008. He is the validator of Guinness’s various records for 8,000m summits."

This makes rock climbing grade discussions seem sane.

In reply to Barrington:

In my mind he will always retain these records. I don't give a crap whether he was a few metres away from the summit or not. If you give this sort of garbage any credence at all you start saying that people didn't summit properly because they didn't go stand on the edge of a cornice or they didn't summit because the snow level was 2 metres lower that year so they didn't reach the original altitude the mountain was in 1704. Or that they didn't summit because a more accurate survey of some summit with loads of bumps came out and now a different bump is the new true top. It's all just completely missing the point.

Also, I did love how the justification was "he said he reached the top, I don't believe that" followed by "he said he could see base camp, I definitely believe that". 

I think Messner put it best in that article when he said “my name to make themselves important... because they themselves have… achieved nothing... (and) did not have the courage to realise their dreams”.

Except that based on what Mr Whatever says at the end of the article, he doesn't sound like the sort of person who even has dreams.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

And remember the golden rule: no selfie no summit.

In reply to Barrington:

Has anyone stood on the actual summit of Kangchenjunga (out of respect for the local gods)?

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Get to the back of the queue

In reply to beefy_legacy:

He’s clearly the man for a definitive opinion on 3PS!

In reply to Lankyman:

Yes that was my first thought as well. Most stop short of the summit (at least the early ascensionists did; I'm sure that someone since has not been able to resist). 

In reply to montyjohn:

Especially when you're at over 8,000m and not using bottled oxygen!

Why doesn't someone from Guiness go round and put a trig point on each summit? Then there would be no doubt.

In reply to Barrington:

So Messner, a giant in the Mountaineering world is to be 'stripped' of his 'records'.  I wonder how much of what he did was in pursuit of records.

Meanwhile, in a distant galaxy, a recent 'record-breaker', Kristin Harila, has said she is 'likely done with climbing' now. 'I feel I have done my part', she is quoted as saying.

Apparently she will be very busy talking about it though. 😂

In reply to Barrington:

the only madness is to think that Guinness records are worth owt

I confess that I'm a bagger in the sense that I don't like to miss out a summit. And I usually at least tap the summit cairn with a walking pole. But, I don't religiously go and stand on the highest point.  I get frustrated with the way true summits are seen as be all and end all of a walk or climb. This whole retrospective reclassifying of peaks turns me off. You can only do what is recognised at the time. What if someone took a look at my university exam papers and decided they were deficient in some way and stripped me of my maths degree? All I could do in 1984 was answer the questions that were put in front of me. No one should look at that 40 years later and say it doesn't meet modern standards.

Messner and the rest of them did what was recognised at the time. You can't ask more than that. I don't care what some geek sitting in his bedroom with a laptop thinks. 

In reply to Pero:

beancounting

In reply to Lankyman:

Almost everyone.

This 'spiritual respect' issue is completely different to the current situation. On Kangch, those first climbers stopped just a few horizontal metres away, maybe a metre or less below, with the intervening ground just easy walking. Nothing like people stopping short on Manaslu because the last fifty horizontal metres was too scary and hard for them to climb.

In reply to everyone:

I'm reposting here what I posted over on the UKC news page:

As one of the 8000ers research group who have been working on this stuff for years, I feel the need to make a few points clear.

1. I personally do not consider Guinness to be any judge or record of excellence in alpinism or mountaineering history. This is Eberhard's thing, something we disagree on strongly, but most of the chronicling work is his work, so...

2. For some context on this people really should read: https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/13201215692 3 and in there you will see that no climber's name is mentioned - which was a deliberate decision. Because this is not about any one climber. It's not about Messner. Of course he's a central figure, but the main aim was the mountains, not the people. Clearing up the geographical facts/issues and shining a light on current practices in the 8000m mountain business. As he's done for 50 years, Messner has made it about Messner.

3. Most people, including almost everyone in this thread it seems, have no idea how much evidence and data has been compiled over the years to form these 8000er dossiers and positions. It's not just a few satellite images or a glib opinion. Rodolphe Popier has looked at hundreds of images of Annapurna summit ridge, likewise dozens and dozens for Manaslu and Dhaulagiri. All the old books and their photos have been studied. Countless climbers asked and re-asked. You think we just make this shit up? Anyone who says you can't tell, or whatever, has not looked at so many photos, which are so consistent in what they show. Can a snow summit vary a few metres between seasons or over decades? Sure, maybe. But the evidence of dozens and dozens of photos show that they don't really. The exception, sometimes, might be Dhaulagiri, where there's a really noticeable difference pre-monsoon v post-monsoon. But as anyone with minimal effort can see, the summits of Manaslu and Dhaulagiri are actually rock, with just a bit of snow on top, so the potential difference will only ever be tiny, and if snow piles up on a ridge point, it also piles up on the actual summit too. So such a statistically unlikely and minor possibility is not enough to negate all the other evidence.

4. "You haven't been there so how would you know?" This is one of the most common criticisms. If having been there was a good qualification for knowing the highest point, then how did hundreds and hundreds of people not realise they were - undeniably, proven - not on the summit of Manaslu during all those years?

5. "Who cares?" In good ol' UKC style, a lot of people have come on here to voluntarily make the point that they don't care and can't understand why anyone else would. So why are you here? 

6. Lots of people care. Viesturs himself went back to Shishapangma to get the true summit, just a few metres higher than his previous central peak. Loretan did likewise, despite having climbed a great new line on the south face in 1990. Nives Meroi and Romano Benet were informed by Hawley that they had stopped short at the pole on Dhaulagiri so they went back. Andrew Lock went back to Broad Peak. And last year 60 former/mistaken 'summiters' went back to Manaslu to go to the true summit, including Ralf Dujmovits. All these people, actual 8000m climbers, not 'armchair critics' care, a lot, but clearly they're all wrong because a bunch of anonymous randoms on UKClimbing and the rest of the web say so. OK then... 

In reply to Barrington:

It's only the Guinness Book of Records.  I thought that was all to do with pork pie eating and bog snorkeling,  not real stuff.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Bog snorkelling is very, very, real.

In reply to Damo:

Are you going to follow this up by telling the many thousand Italians who have been to the Madonna on Gran Paradiso it doesn't count and they need to go back to the true summit or they are charlatons? I'm sure they'll appreciate your research and insights.

In reply to Damo:

To use a slightly lesser example than Annapurna , I have climbed Ingleborough on numerous occasions (even wearing a wetsuit once, although I am not claiming this as a first for the Guinness book of records). It's an extensive plateau with a stone shelter, a trig point and the remains of a stone tower. Throw in a couple of OS height figures and it's not obvious what the highest point is. I don't visit every possible contender on every visit but every time I set foot on that plateau that's an ascent to me.

In reply to Lankyman:

What about the Striding Edge scandal?  Those hordes who claim to have "dunnit" even though they bypass it via the tarn side path well below the rocky bit?  It grinds my gears!  I feel like following them all home and telling their neighbours by shouting through their letterboxes!

In reply to MG:

Has anyone been called a charlatan? By keeping Messner recorded as the legacy record holder I think it’s pretty clear that Guinness don’t think he is a charlatan. 

It’s curious to me that a large proportion of this site’s membership regularly rely on maps and presumably view accurate and detailed mapping as a good thing, yet Damo describing some of the background to that process gets such an angry and sarcastic response.

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Not in so many words but it's clear the "commissars" regard anyone who continues to claim an ascent they disapprove of as such 

This isn't about map making.

In reply to Lankyman:

Perhaps an even more notable domestic example is Helvellyn - the actual summit isn't the trig or the stone cross-shelter but the cairn on that little snout overlooking the Red Tarn slope. I have a friend who has been up Helvellyn over 200 times (including at least once every year since 1959, a remarkable record, not that Guinness would be interested) and he says it's striking just how many people go to the trig or the shelter but not to the actual cairn. He doesn't think for a minute however that they should be chastised for saying they've climbed Helvellyn when they haven't; it merely amuses/entertains him on an observational such-is-life basis (as with me seeing the hefty number of people walking straight past the Ochil summits of Ben Cleuch and the Law without actually visiting them).

In reply to Lankyman:

Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not hard to imagine the response if you did apply for a world record on that basis. Doesn’t invalidate the ascent, but records of any kind are notoriously bound by technicalities and all sorts of arbitrary contingencies. 

You could do the Welsh 3000s any which way you wanted and honestly say you’d done it, but if you want to claim the record there is only one recognised start and finish. 

In reply to Damo:

Whether 5m below the highest point counts as a summit tick is a matter of opinion. Judging by comments on here and elsewhere, it seems most people think it does.

But if taking the view that it doesn't count, then the same needs to be applied to Kangchenjunga, regardless of the reasons for staying a few metres below the top.

Otherwise the rule-setters just appear hypocritical in their pedantry.

In reply to MG:

Sorry, no idea what that means. I’ve not been following this storm in a teacup very closely.

Dani’s post was about a project “Clearing up the geographical facts/issues” and determining the exact summit points. Sounds like it’s about mapping, or as near as makes no difference to a layperson. They specifically said they don’t see Guinness World Records as relevant to this or to mountaineering history, and that their interest was in the mountains rather than the people/ascents. 

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

I think through the period 1990-2010 I probably went up 20-30 times each year, some years more (my friendly local mountain) and at least 10 times a year or more since then and I always go to that cairn!

In reply to Stuart Williams:

And what about people who climb White Slab (E2 5c) or Great Slab (VS 4c) on Cloggy and then don't go on to Snowdon summit?! Cheaters! The logbooks need amending! 

In reply to Stuart Williams:

I don't think anyone would object to accurate summit surveys. If you read the articles though that's not the focus of what's going on.

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Almost as if those involved on UKC 'pile-ons' don't like information that contradicts their pitchfork slogans. Still, I'm surprised the 'legacy' issue wasn't handled better, I'd welcome Damo's comments on that, as the most knowledgeable regular on UKC. It seems daft to hold the top of the list (with the equipment they had) to the same standards as those involved in 8000m 'tourism', especially when based on notoriously unreliable recall at 8000m+. Ed Viesturs, the new 'official' record holder, was the 12th to climb all 14.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander

In reply to Chirs:

If we are dealing with significant ascents, I think most fair minded people would think there are roughly three possibilities

1) Someone got to what they honestly believed to be a summit and reported this.  It turns out a minor bump may or may not be a bit higher.  Getting to this bump would obviously have been possible and they would have clearly done it if they had known.

2) Someone got to what they honestly believed to be the summit and reported this. It turns out there is a higher bump with significant difficulties in the way so its not certain they could have got there.

3) Someone dishonestly reports getting to the a summit when they know they didn't

Highlighting the 3)s seems fair enough, and the 2)s, maybe, but harping on about the 1)s is just pettifogging nonsense.

In reply to Andy Say:

I'm puzzled as to why some of them are "records" at all.

I was always under the impression that a record had to be "beatable" in some measure - such that someone else could, potentially, take it from you in the future.

So, you might hold the record for the fastest ascent, but you can't, by that definition, hold one for being "first" - you just get bragging rights.

In reply to wercat:

Indeed.

(I've got 2, btw...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrita_Furman

In reply to MG:

I’d read some of the articles, but that wasn’t what I was talking about. It was the focus of Damo’s post, which nonetheless got a pretty disparaging response as to the value of their work on summit positions. 

In reply to LastBoyScout:

Interesting point. Guinness’s criteria say a record must be “Breakable – Can the record be broken? Our record titles must be open to being challenged.” So yeah, by their own criteria they don’t seem to be relevant to any discussion. 

In reply to LastBoyScout:

Thanks for posting. What a website. "Underwater pogo stick jumping"? Along with other completely daft world records. Can't decide if it's funny or sad

OK decided now. Sad

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Yep.

Land's End - John 'O Groats is like that, in so far as there's no set route and you could go via Dover and still say you've done it, even though most people would take it as the most direct route you can do on any given day (subject to roadworks, etc...).

On many of these type of records, Guinness will only accept the fastest time between the official start and finish points and restrict the number of "styles", or there'd be a billion records along the lines of "Via Norwich on roller skates" and "Via Pembroke in a haddock costume".

In reply to Derry:

My recollection of reading an article on Jurgalski a year or so ago was that the surveying was interesting and valid but the conclusions redrawing mountaineering first ascents were of little relevance. It isn't his fault that the chattering classes (us) have run with it. Damo's post on the other thread clarifies a lot. If there is one massive irrelevance in this whole thing it's the Guinness Records. Irrespective of their rigor or otherwise, I'm not attaching any more value to their recording of mountaineering firsts than I would to Wikipedia.

In reply to Offwidth:

Still, I'm surprised the 'legacy' issue wasn't handled better,

Agreed. Eberhard has in fact posted a pre-2017 'legacy' list with the 'new' list though I doubt most have seen it. But again, while we discussed this as a group, we never decided on a definitive statement. Eberhard went ahead and published lists/tables on his own, and the media storm followed. Same happened last year with the 'shrink list'.

It's quite difficult though, and we try not to dictate rules or how we think things should be, mostly. We try to establish facts and ask questions when practices seem at odds with those facts, or at least that's my approach personally. We actually take in lots of opinions - and I might as well confess here and now that over the years I've used UKClimbing as a testing ground/practice pitch/research tool for some of these issues - and have to take lots of factors into account.

All of us are fans of the climbs of Messner, Kukuzcka, Loretan, etc. It gutted me to realise Erhard had made a mistake on Dhaulagiri. We contort ourselves inside out trying not to be too harsh on our heroes in a sport we love. But the facts are the facts, and despite what many here think, out there many agree. We floated the idea of Tolerance Zones (TZs) for the 8000ers, as can be seen in my original AAJ piece, but we monitored public reaction to it online, over months, and it was pretty overwhelming that people agreed 'the summit is the highest point and there's only one' (to, ironically? paraphrase Carlos Carsolio) and that TZs were a cop-out (aside from being difficult to administer/record). More so, the reaction to Jackson Groves' drone footage of Manaslu made it impossible to think otherwise. 

Which leads me to the other, main difficulty which is pertinent to publishing two lists or a legacy list. The current state of information. Everywhere. But mostly online. It's almost impossible to have balanced arguments, heated or not, and there is little room for nuance. Most people on most sites are commenting out of complete ignorance about mountaineering, high altitude, chronicling sport etc. Which can be OK, completely non-expert out of field opinions can be insightful and valuable to those of us in it up to our necks. But mostly it's just rubbish. So they won't be reading or appreciating any 'legacy' lists.

This distortion of facts, 'truth' and information in general is a subject of importance to me, as might have been discerned from anyone who took notice of any of my posts over the years. It's the Information Ecosystem. It's the importance of epistemological security, that is, how we know the things we know, how we agree on facts, or not and how we maintain peace, security and progress in the face of bad-faith actors spreading disinformation, or our own tolerance for misinformation in the name of convenience, commerce or emotional vulnerability.

It seems daft to hold the top of the list (with the equipment they had) to the same standards as those involved in 8000m 'tourism',

Not sure what you mean by this. The Japanese in 1956 (and Messner in 1972) managed to find the true summit of Manaslu just fine, with no GPS, sat images or trackers, as did a number of other expeditions up until the recent commercial era. 

In reply to Barrington:

All these comments have prompted me to look deeply into the mirror: I am a complete fraud as I have never actually "done" the Cuillin Ridge as I've believed for years. I reckon 99% of others just bypass the top block on the Inn Pin as well. Come to think of it - did the current "record holder" hop up, or was it only Danny M on his bike for the photo?   

In reply to Barrington:

I was glad I did the Dubh Slabs and the Coire Lagan round as warm up/recce trips for the ridge, since I meant I didn't "have" to visit Sgurr Dubh Mor and Sgurr Alasdair on Ridge Day in order to have a full set of (main range) Cuillin Munros.

In reply to Barrington:

I'm waiting for the analysis of this  youtube.com/watch?v=9U0tDU37q2M& and John Cleese' reaction when he finds out that they should have topped out at the Thames Water tower on the island and not the corner of Shepherds Bush Green!!!

In reply to Damo:

But you are not at all calling climbers dishonest. Oh no.  Just facts

In reply to Damo:

I struggle with motives for nearly all of them on the list back then, but not at all for motives of summit baggers or their sherpas now (some 'clients' have realised they have been lied to). We don't know the earlier climbers on the list found summits "just fine" nor the exact conditions cf of those who did.  If things were nearly always obvious it seems unthinkable: all those highly respected climbers taking such deliberate actions.

Anyhow, thanks again for your input on these threads.

In reply to pancakeandchips:

Oh... I know!

In reply to montyjohn:

Just thinking about this but, I think you are spot on.  I have a clear memory of seeing Grindelwald meadows from the top of the Wetterhorn however I also remember it was misty on the summit (photos confirms).  So, my memory of the view must be from a little lower below the cloud.   This was at a modest altitude.  The idea that similar recollections from 8000+m prove or disprove things is nuts.

In reply to MG:

You don't even need to be at altitude. I was watching a documentary a while back (I remember it so clearly) about memory and how it works.

They used a case example how there were multiple eye witnesses of the twin towers disaster and the witnesses claimed they saw what was happening from their living room window for example. However, it turned out, there was no line of sight, and they had likely watched it on TV and their memories just bodged the two together.

Apparently we do it all the time, as it's often the verdict of the memory we need to survive, not the exact circumstances. The longer after the event, the more bodged together it becomes.

It's a real problem and well understood when interrogating witnesses and suspects etc, as they can be telling you the truth, but all the details are wrong. 

In reply to Barrington:

I wonder if Mr Jurgalski is perhaps a bit autistic, or something similar?   To be so religiously dependent on reported facts while ignoring the fallibility of the human memory, or the way in which we tell 'stories' around the facts...

Hands how many people thing Rheinhold Messner would get to within 20m of a summit and think "oh f***k it, that's close enough, we can just get back before closing time"?

Bloody armchair warriors...

In reply to Dave Cundy:

Highly probable, but that doesn't invalidate his surveying work. 

No-one, Jurgalski included.

...with no sense of irony.

In reply to MG:

The idea that similar recollections from 8000+m prove or disprove things is nuts.

Good that you agree RM's recall might not be perfect. This issue goes both ways, and usually errs toward the positive, for those doing the recalling. Again, Manaslu proved this over and over again.

According to various news sources, Ed Viesturs is refusing to accept the record.  I'm not at all surprised.  The whole exercise is out of keeping with the spirit of mountaineering. 

There's a joint press conference in Trento on October 14th, apparently.

In reply to MG:

A good summary

No one is suggesting that RM’s claim is a 3), I think? So- what is the Annapurna summit ridge like? Is this an example of 1) or 2)..?

In reply to Damo:

Your point about epistemological security is interesting; but there are some things we can never know for certain. It strikes me this is likely to be one of them. And while it’s important, so is fairness. If RM had a history of questionable claims, then skepticism would be inevitable. I’m not aware that he has; the benefit of the doubt would seem to me to apply here. 

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

No one has ever implied that Messner* deliberately lied or was dishonest in any way, about any summit, anywhere. 

Quite the contrary, he was a great researcher and a stickler for detail, to the point of pedantry. It is something I always admired about him. When people question the usefulness or coolness of 'armchair mountaineers' and knowing lots of information, I usually quote Messner himself who said (paraphrased): "If you want to do new things, you need to know what has been done."

RM & HK climbed the NW face, reached the 'summit ridge' undoubtedly, but that ridge is long, with multiple small tops, and it seems they probably only continued part way along, given the poor weather conditions, the exposed situation and their understandable fatigue.

The previous year Erhard Loretan and Norbert Joos did an amazing whole traverse of the mountain (up the east end of the south face, along the east ridge, over the summit and down the FA north face into an entirely different valley system). They spent hours negotiating that upper summit ridge, which Messner would have known.

RM has given conflicting responses over the years, seemingly acknowledging (in the NYT feature) that they may have stopped short, but it didn't matter and he didn't care. Cool. Other times he's seemed to have said they reached 'the top' onto the long ridge and, as in the Alps, the new route was the main thing, and as it reached an existing route, the actual summit was not so important, in a climbing sense, so they didn't worry too much about continuing along the ridge. Now he seems to be saying that they summited, no question. But I'm just going on media articles, for recent statements.

RM/HK have no conclusive photo evidence they summited, unlike his iconic summit shots from other mountains. The description in his 'Annapurna' book, published much later in 2000, is vague and, given he uses ghost writers, then translators, not very helpful. 

The question is, in such a case, does it matter if they stopped short? In terms of alpinism, as a climber, I don't think so. For a professional athlete making claims to primacy or supremacy of some sort? Maybe. Maybe not. We'll see.

*HK is a different story, given his proven false claims on Mt Logan and Peak Mandala, and for the FA of Jasamba. I won't go into any of that.

I think, minor errors aside, this is a good take on the issue: 

https://eveningsends.com/a-summit-paradox-making-sense-of-the-messner-mess

In reply to Damo   Having just watched the Uli Steck /Dani Arnold film was Steck actually credited with his ascent of Annapurna South Face ? He claims to have topped out on the ridge then gone to the highest point but no camera/photos to back it up ?

In reply to Damo:

Very interesting piece- thanks for sharing.

From your knowledge of this area- what is that summit ridge on Annapurna like? Would that 65m along and 5m up have been a straightforward snow plod, a few minutes out and back? Or objectively very serious and painstakingly technical ground?

In reply to Damo:

I agree. It doesn't really matter.

Was that ever really the case with Messner? Sure, it's nice to be the first; but 'supremacy'?

In reply to leon 1:

Im not sure,i know there were a lot of doubt on the internet over it, but i personally would like to think he did it,he also mentioned in a interview the importance of documentation.

In reply to blackcat:   As a fat punter who struggles up moderate slopes I don't really have any reason to question Steck since many of the other things he has done seemed equally unbelievable but were proven 100%. However apart from Annapurna South Face there was also the similar Shisha controversy which caused  a lot of doubt. Again malfunctioning GPS and camera, no summit photos and apparently climbing the headwall between 7300 and 7500m almost 4 times quicker than Krzysztof Wielicki had managed

Only one person will ever have known for sure however Im a bit curious on the 8000ers.com 'official' take on it

In reply to leon 1:

Yes, he was an incredible climber. But Cesare Maestri was called 'the spider of the Dolomites' for a reason, before lying on Cerro Torre. Tomo Cesen was on video soloing 8a (?) and had climbed a new route on Kangchenjunga, with a partner, before lying on Jannu and Lhotse. Christian Stangl had climbed Everest in 16hrs before lying on K2. These things are almost never complete hoaxes, more like fudges that get out of hand.

However apart from Annapurna South Face there was also the similar Shisha controversy which caused  a lot of doubt. Again malfunctioning GPS and camera, no summit photos and apparently climbing the headwall between 7300 and 7500m almost 4 times quicker than Krzysztof Wielicki had managed

Pretty much, yeah. If you understand the Shisha episode(s) then it makes it very hard to accept the Annapurna claim, unfortunately.

The dossiers on the Steck issues are at:

https://www.pioletsdor.net/index.php/en/international-forum-bibliography

In reply to Damo:  Delicately put