Edmund Hillary died today.  I didn’t know him of course, just a little about him – just a regular guy who did amazing things, he would say.  I wouldn’t say I’m a ‘fan’, but I certainly do admire what he has done (not just Everest) as what I guess you could call ‘the last Anglo-Saxon hero.’  His passing doesn’t affect me emotionally, but it is giving me a hard time.

Hillary’s death means something, but I can’t put my finger on what, exactly.  My feeling is that he didn’t quite rank among the great explorers (and he didn’t see himself there either), even those of the 20th century.  He had some significant ‘firsts’ and did some cool stuff.  I think what’s significant is that perhaps more than any other person at the time, Hillary personified adventure sports, ushering in a new age of adventure where it’s personal (instead of for ‘Queen and Country’ or something else equally idealistic, like ‘Science’), relatively quick (all of his subsequent ‘expeditions’ were motorized), and apparently ‘safe’ (really, nothing of the kind) and therefore – and I think this part is critical – good for television.  I think it’s entirely relevant that Hillary’s Everest ascent occurred at the beginning of the age of television; the Everest ascent was an achievement that a lay audience could grasp much more than, say, under-sea exploration, and likely see it as achieveable.

This is not a bad thing.  Hillary clearly regarded himself as a ‘normal person’ who happened to have a strong back and was good on ice.  He said a number of times that adventuring can be for ordinary people, not just the romantic super-nobility.  Hillary made adventuring accessible.  He was a beekeeper, for Pete’s sake.

But, come on, Hillary wasn’t normal, and adventuring of this scale (Everest!!!) is not for the average person.  I think I’m pretty average, and I couldn’t do Everest (or the odds would be very, very, very slim.)  I couldn’t do what Frank Cole did, or what Francis Joyon is doing right now.  These are special people with special training and a lot more discipline that I have – I find it hard to do laundry.  Hillary downplayed his strong back and skill on ice; but it seems that those very things (and some help and luck) enabled him to succeed where so many others hadn’t (haven’t) been able to before (since).  Not everyone has a strong back or can be good on ice.

Take me, for example.  At my peak, I was merely an average mountain biker at the provincial and national levels.  I could never approach Olympic or World Cup levels even if was the one thing I wanted most.  I am lacking both inherent physical and mental requirements.  The same goes with sailing – I might be nationally competitive in Lasers (I’m the right shape and weight) if I had better wind sense and the quickness of mind for tactics.  But I don’t.  I’ve been sailing long enough to know this.  I’ve been both a competitor and a coach in enough sports (including what might be called ‘adventure’ sports) to know that some are ‘naturals’ and some are not, and a few are really – naturally – terrible.  Further more, I’ve seen my share of ‘phenomenons’ to understand that consistent success in a given sport requires the confluence of many, often unquantifiable, factors.  Hillary, I think, was something of a phenomenon, though he wouldn’t say it.  I don’t at all mean to lessen the value of his accomplishments.  To achieve what Hillary did in his time (technological development in recent years has enabled many more to summit Everest, but I wonder if they would have been able in 1953) is indeed remarkable and he deserves every scrap of honor that has been heaped upon him.  Regarde!