In the weeks that followed Marko Prezelj’s refusal of the 2006 Piolet d’or, at the ceremony in Grenoble, France, on January 26, Climbing sat down with the Montagnes editors Phillipe Descamps and Manu Rivaud. Here is their take on this year’s ceremony, Prezelj’s stance, and on the complex issues surrounding the Piolet and similar awards, including Climbing’s Golden Piton.

Did you expect that Prezelj would decline the award this year? How was the audience and judge’s reaction?

Philippe Descamps: We knew that Marco had a very particular relationship with the media. He’s a somewhat provocative character, but a likeable one as well, and he is above all else a top-notch climber who makes the way for future generations. 

At the time, Marko’s position wasn’t entirely clear and understandable. That’s why, after the ceremony, I suggested to him that he should write out his point of view so that it could be published in Montagnes magazine. Not long after sending us his text, which is set to be published in our next issue (April 2007), he sent it to other publications as well. 

We will publish others opinions as well, and we think it is very important that this debate takes place.  Its too early to make any kind of assessment of the reactions, but there are a number of them. 

Have you been able to understand or agree with his motives for doing so? Have you and he spoken about this?

Manu Rivaud : Yes. We first took the time to get better acquainted. Things flowed very well.  There was mutual respect between us and a desire to see things move forward, [and] also to explain to Marko the goal and the significance of the Piolet d’or [Golden Ice Axe] as it was originally conceived and how we would like to see it evolve.

Descamps: Marko exaggerates the positions a bit by putting all the media in the same basket, whether they be the large and far-reaching media or the smaller and more specialized. And it may come as a surprise, but we basically agree with him on the some of his essential points (if not always the particlar way in which he writes it). I think that the level of competition pushed to such a high level, in particular by money, is harmful to the body (over-training, drug-use, dependancy, acceptance of unconsidered risk, etc.), as well as to the mind (hierarchal perception of the human community, superiority complexes, etc.). 

The goal of the Piolet d’or has never been to assign rankings or designate the « Best » mountaineer in the world. It aims rather to celebrate the thirst for adventure and the sense of exploration that comes with the art of climbing the world’s most beautiful summits. It also aims to show the world that the sport of mountaineering today is alive and well, that adventures on a grand scale are still possible today, and oftentimes with an ethical code even more pure than it has been in the past. 

For Montagnes magazine, the organization of the Piolet d’or costs a lot of money. But we do it because we think it can serve the sport of mountaineering.  That’s why we have always listened to criticism, of the good and the bad variety.

Rivaud: As a practicing mountaineer for eight years in the Alps in every season, I absolutely understand the position of Marco Prezelj. I would have without a doubt thought the same if I had not completely understood the role and the significance of the Piolet d’or. This role and this significance needs to be clearly redefined to the whole mountaineering community.             

The conversation lasted several hours, and I agree with Marko that the Piolet d’or could lead to bad situations in which the recipients and finalists do not well represent the values of mountaineering, or more importantly, those of mountaineers. I also agree that it is impossible to compare two ascents, since a single route can change in difficulty and undertaking in the course of a single day. It is precisely for this reason that each year we insist on the subjectivity of this award. 

I know Prezelj received the first Piolet, in 1991 — how many times has he been nominated?

Rivaud: Marko has been nominated for the Piolet d’or four times – 1991, 1995, 2001, and 2006.

What do you think about Prezelj and Rolo Garibotti’s idea to hold the Piolet more as an open meet and exchange of ideas, than as an awards ceremony?

Rivaud: It’s a good idea. But the goal of the Piolet d’or has been to make the world of mountaineering more available to as large a public as possible. These types of meetings are often geared only toward climbers. Those members of the public who don’t climb and who are not familiar with the mountains rarely ever show up. 

Descamps: The climbers’ meetings are very nice. But do we always want to stay amongst ourselves or do we also want to tell our stories to others? 

The critique of Marko and Rolando also clings to the fact that there is without a doubt a discrepancy between our intention at its core, and the shape in which the ceremony can take in its second part, where the Piolet d’or is given to a team with a certain level of pomposity. Like Marko or others, I think it would be best to place less emphasis on a single ascent and to associate more with the climbers themselves. I would suggest, for example, to have each of the nominees vote for an ascent (with an enforcement against voting for oneself). In our mind, it’s not so much a question of designating a champion as it is to designate a spokesman for the sport of mountaineering. With his big mouth, Marko makes an excellent spokesman. …

Despite the stance of the Groupe de Haute Montagne these past few years we have tried to advance the Piolet d’or with a more international jury, higher standards concerning ethics and method of means, a longer meeting with the jury in order to prevent cheating, etc.  We still have a ways to go and it will require, I think, a writing-out of the tacit rules as dictated by the Piolet d’or organization in order to avoid any misunderstandings.