Louisa Wall: True sport and the risk of failure

Given the continued furore, it is serendipitous that one of the books by my bedside at the moment is Off the Front Foot, How to Stay One Step Ahead in Life by Mark Inglis.

I was inspired to buy the book before his latest Everest adventure and it provides an insight into the psychology of a person who some have said was wrong to have left British mountaineer David Sharp to die on Everest.

In the book Inglis comments that true sport is based on challenge and risk, and predominantly conscious risk - risk that is predominantly under your control.

"True sport" is a concept based on the consequences of poor performance, including the possibility of paying the ultimate price - your life.

So, achievement is all about growth, whereas competition is totally about a short-term result.

Inglis would never have planned for a David Sharp scenario because who was Sharp relative to what Inglis wanted to achieve? Unfortunately, Sharp was not a contributor to Inglis' achieving his goal and so he did what he could to assist and continued on like all the others.

A website dedicated to climbing Everest described Sharp's passing as: "He did not get himself down and therefore he died." And that pretty much aligns with the achievement culture of mountaineering and many adventure sports wouldn't you say?

Were Inglis and others (40 people walked on by) right to leave the dying climber? In my opinion, context is relevant and those that aim to climb Everest are very special people indeed.

Therefore, my definition of right and wrong is not what I or others think as subjective or objective observers but what value and belief system that each of those 40 people, including Inglis decided as right and wrong, for them at that point in time - and believe me they will hold themselves to their definition.

But, as observers we can make some judgments based on our consciences, and what we think we would do if in the same situation, but this would only be speculation.

In his book Inglis talked about personal achievement and what his definition of this was. In January 2002 he was put in an unenviable position of defending his actions, which some defined as cheating after he climbed Aoraki, Mt Cook.

After Christmas he'd managed to get to 3100 metres but he did not finish the climb and so when he returned later to complete the achievement he was dropped off by helicopter at 2800 metres in the Bowie Corner on Linda Glacier to finish the climb to the summit, which he did.

Those claims of cheating were because it was not a continuous climb but it was irrelevant to Inglis as he was certain that he may have cheated them perhaps but definitely not himself.

His desire was to stand again on the summit of Mt Cook, not to be the first double-amputee to climb the mountain and whatever the criticism, he rated that personal achievement as a big integrity deposit.

There is a saying in sport and life that at the end of the day, you can't hide from that person in the mirror and in some ways isn't he or she the only one that matters?

Inglis is an achiever, and I don't think this incident can take away from his Everest feat, but what this situation does graphically show is the raw reality of success - that to some, people just don't matter as much as the game or achievement itself. Mark Inglis is an extra-special Kiwi and this type of achievement is inspirational.

What has been interesting to observe is the peripheral discourse about social constructs around disability - what we expected from this double-amputee (or was it about his being a Kiwi?) was for him to climb Everest and save a man as well. I thought Superman was a myth.