In defence of Eberhard Jurgalski
The decision by Guinness World Records to strip Reinhold Messner of his position in their record books as the first person to climb all fourteen 8000m peaks has caused a media storm this week. In retaliation Messner has called Eberhard Jurgalski, the mountain chronicler whose work the decision is based on, as “clueless” and “not an expert”. And newspapers have dubbed him a “hobbyist”.
The brief backstory is that Jurgalski and his team at 8,000’ers.com have spent years of detailed research on summit topography to conclude that on a number of 8000m peaks, some climbers had not reached the true summit, and that this had been happening for decades. Historically this was due to ignorance or confusion on the exact nature of the summit topography. For the full history of this debate read this excellent piece in the American Alpine Club Journal.
To those in the know this is old news, which broke last year. But Guinness have well and truly stirred the pot once again. Commenters online have been roasting Jurgalski, insulting him and his work. See the comments section of this piece for a flavour of the flak he is receiving.
What most casual readers don’t appreciate is that while the decision to tweak the historical record books may be arguable, the underpinning research has been extensive and involved a very dedicated team. Jurgalski has been aided by Rodolphe Popier, Tobias Pantel, Damien Gildea, Federico Bernardi, Bob Schelfhout, and Thaneswar Guragai (of Seven Summit Treks). For over a decade the team have fastidiously researched years of summit claims. More recently the team has carried out impressive work to identify and describe the summit areas of Broad Peak, Dhaulagiri, Annapurna, and Manaslu. And along with the Himalayan Database, the 8000’ers.com team are arguably the leading chroniclers of high altitude mountaineering in the Himalaya and Karakoram.
Eberhard Jurgalski. Photo: Clara Tuma for The New York Times
Messner and his followers are understandably salty. “I had my records taken away because I was five metres short of one summit,” he apparently told one newspaper. That isn’t quite true as it was 65 metres short in distance, and five meters in elevation according to Jurgalski. That aside, the biggest bone of contention for Messner and co is that in their eyes Jurgalski is but a mere ‘armchair critic’.
That argument is one I have often heard from adventurers who can become thin skinned when the media or other commentators are not acting as a cheerleader. But if satellite imagery, and GPS data and drone footage from climbers have brought these historic inaccuracies to light, does Jurgalski really have to have set foot on the summit of an 8000’er to make an accurate conclusion? And in addition, what you might not know is that the research team also includes climbers. Damien Gildea, for example, has climbed extensively in Antarctica, collecting high precision GPS data for mapping purposes, and making numerous first ascents along the way.
I don’t know what discussions Jurgalski had with Guinness, nor who from the wider 8000’ers team was involved. Personally I wouldn’t have applied this new found knowledge to historical expeditions, instead applying it to all those going forward. But I do feel that it would be wise not to be too harsh to Eberhard Jurgalski. He works voluntary, at some personal expense, to compile extensive documentation on the past and present of high altitude mountaineering. Who else cares enough to do that? I think it’s a little unfair to dub him as some sort of idiot “hobbyist”.
As one commenter nicely summarises, there is a more pertinent debate here than to slam Jurgalski and co — It's not "absolute rubbish" though is it. It's an argument well supported with data. As to whether those 5 metres matter, that's a different question.”
