Paul Preuss (climber) - Mauerhakenstreit (piton Dispute)

Mauerhakenstreit (piton Dispute)

In September 1911 Preuss's essay "Artificial Aids on Alpine Routes" appeared in the Deutsche Alpenzeitung. This essay, an incendiary polemic against the increasing use of artificial aid in the Alps, sparked off a series of published exchanges from such renowned alpinists of the day as Tita Piaz and Franz Nieberl. This debate became known as the Mauerhakenstreit or the piton dispute. It was in a later essay that Preuss distilled the main points of his ethics of pure style into his celebrated six principles:

• 1. You should not be equal to the mountain climbs you undertake, you should be superior.
• 2. The degree of difficulty that a climber is able to overcome with security on the descent and also believes himself capable of with an easy conscience must represent the upper limit of what he climbs on the ascent.
• 3. The justification for the use of artificial aids consequently exists only in the event of an immediately threatening danger.
• 4. The piton is an emergency reserve and not the basis for a method of working.
• 5. The rope is permitted as a relief-bringing means but never as the one true means for making the ascent of the mountain possible.
• 6. The principle of security belongs to the highest principles. But not the frantic correction of one's own insecurity attained by means of artificial aids, rather that primary security which with every climber should be based in the correct estimation of his ability in relation to his desire.

Note that any use of pitons, whether as protection, or as belay or rappel anchors would be unethical, except under dire need. Even rappelling was something he objected to, something only to be used in the event of serious danger. If you can't climb down a route, you shouldn't climb up it either. For Preuss, getting back down is part of climbing the route, and descending aided by pure technology is certainly not climbing under your own power. So Preuss advocated teaching and practicing down-climbing. Mastering the art of down-climbing also eliminates the need for piton protection while leading – the climber's skill and self-confidence is his protection. Ropes were acceptable for belaying as long as the leader could and would climb the pitch up and down free solo (and feel comfortable about doing so). Slinging flakes and the like would be acceptable under the same conditions. But Preuss would most likely have considered modern nuts and camming units to be artificial aid, even when just used for protection. Consequently, he would have condemned most modern climbing, even what we call “free climbing,” as artificial aid! So even though many today embrace Preuss as a precursor of Walter Bonatti, Reinhold Messner and Royal Robbins in their scrupulous avoidance of bolts, Preuss would have been appalled at their heavy reliance on other technological aids. But perhaps it could be said that they all share a philosophy, one highlighting human adventure and ability over sheer technological advancement. Though most of his opponents agreed with his principles in theory, in practice Preuss was basically accused of have gone too far in the direction of one extreme in order to combat another. Specifically, he was, among other things, accused of:

• Inhumanity, since leaders would not be able to place protection even when this might save their lives in the event of an accident,
• Endangering the lives of professional guides,
• Seducing young climbers into sacrificing themselves to the “terrible Moloch” of his high ideal,
• Inconsistency, since the shoes and ice axes he used should also be counted as artificial aids.

Yet Preuss didn't take this heavy opposition to his ideas too much to heart. He could even joke about it: My fingertips were climbed through, adhesive tape had to come to my aid, which even the severe critic probably won't charge as a violation of my theories on artificial aid since I used the adhesive tape with the sticky side facing inward.

Reinhold Messner suggests that Preuss was no zealot who expected an absolutely rigid adherence to his principles. In practice, compromise may be the best way. He points to the fact that Preuss did use fixed pins as protection at least twice (on the second ascent of the Rizzikamin, which is usually wet, on the South Face of the Innerkofler Tower) instead of backing off as he should have by his own lights, and he even personally placed two pitons: on the first ascent of the Trisselwand, Preuss reached a crux section as it was getting late in the day and, reluctant to commit to the risky move required, eventually placed two pitons, probably merely to spare the female member of the party an uncomfortable night out. As Messner writes: A compromise is possible in practice..., not in philosophy. One should always strive for the ideal. But Messner notwithstanding, we probably shouldn't exaggerate the amount of compromise Preuss would have deemed acceptable.