German press did not correctly translate the English word “legacy” used in the original press release, but wrongly translated it to “outdated” (in German), and that is far from what it was meant. The wrong translation appeared later in the international press too. Well, actually it should have been clear that neither 8000ers.com nor Guinness wanted - or could - delete those titles.

We would like also stress that Guinness did not determine the, from our point of view, necessary changes, but only 8000ers.com. They were well thought through proposals, how to handle the obviously Past-Future-Dilemma. Guinness just collect and publish claimed records confirmed by us.

That's just some parts of the German-speaking press - which didn't read anything about the 8000ers.com’s detailed statement - but immediately sensed a scandal and straight published it without fact-checking. Honestly, nobody has taken away any well-deserved title or importance from Jerzy Kukuczka, Gerlinde Kaltenbrunner, or from Reinhold Messner either. There wasn't a word about that in the press release either.

The detailed research information, published in the form of tables and detailed pdf documents was meant to show the results of years-long, accurate, collectively shared study.

We were and we are convinced that the results of our investigations are correct and should simply be published out of respect for the self-sacrificing work of the researchers over the years, which also includes experienced alpinists, involved in the process.

The “Historical Recognition Table” was actually intended to be as a “friendly bridge connecting and separating two eras”. We are convinced that it will remain the most important historical table in the history of 14 8,000-meter mountain climbers, and that it should be the respectful final table. It is valid forever and based on tolerance zones  up to 190m (Annapurna I C0).

Lots of the climbers of the past believed to be on the highest point of the 8,000m peaks. Those ascents were historically accepted and we did not want to change them, we wanted only to classify them based on our research work.

With the appearance of the Nirmal Purja phenomenon, that earlier era should be considered historically ended, as an Alpine historical legacy. In fact, today's quick collection of all 14x8,000m peaks has nearly nothing to do with the summentioned era, for evident reasons. To be mentioned that one of the goals of this chart at the time of its 2022 publication was to seek for help from the community in order to fill all the blanks listed as “no evidence” (which don’t forcibly mean no summit!).

The former "new" table is actually only a transitional table in which the results of the passionate researchers are shown out of respect, but they also have a retrospective historical value and are very informative for several perspectives in the future.

The third table is designed for current and future quick summit collectors, the team being fully aware of the radical differences existing between this new era’s sport-like practices and the traditional exploration alpinism for which style first of all matters. Considering the absence of feedback from alpine institutions since 2021, it’s based on some simple rules widely recognized and accepted for years now, and already executed by many climbers. The simplest of those is: the summit is the summit.

These climbers will have to climb to the true summit since they know already where it is due to our work. Incidentally, the Nepalese outfitters have been informed of this by a team member since 2019 and since then, they are sticking to it.

The fact that Edmund Viesturs was the first person to actually climb the 14 8000 to the highest point in the last era is worth at least a mention and should also be honored. The fact that he thereby obliterates the old record is just the fantasy of superficial journalists, which so many have fallen for. A transfer to the third, new table for mountaineers of the old elite, because they want to complete the right peaks, forms the connection and upcoming acceptance of this historical separation of eras.

Finally, I would like to conclude that everything was well-intentioned and without any intent of rewrite history or cancel historical climbs; it was maybe not communicated in the best way but also misinterpreted and summarized ambiguously by some. A more detailed report is still being worked on with all aspects and perspectives, and it would be helpful if you now look closely at the three tables by also reading the headings realizing that from a chronicler’s point of view, the whole research was a gigantic past-future dilemma occurring in an unprecedented context of change for climbing the highest peaks in Himalaya and Karakorum.

The tables are created according to our latest status.

Legacy Table