Background ¦ Your reaction

The Background:

The discovery of the body of mountaineering pioneer George Mallory on Mount Everest could result in Sir Edmund Hillary losing credit for reaching the summit first.

The US-led expedition who found the adventurer's well-preserved remains just 2,000 ft from the summit are now hunting for his camera.

If the film contains a photograph of Mallory on top of Everest then the history books would have to change.

George Mallory and his colleague Andrew "Sandy" Irvine vanished during their attempt to conquer the mountain in 1924.

Nearly 30 years later New Zealander Sir Edmund Hillary and his Nepalese guide Sherpa Tenzing climbed their way into the record books by scaling the world's highest peak in 1953.

But does it really matter who got there first?

Nova expedition climber Dave Hahn, was the first to come across Mallory's remains:

"We didn't want to disturb him. He'd been lying there for 75 years, but at the same time we thought what better tribute to the man than to try and find out if he had summitted Mount Everest in 1924."

Background ¦ Your reaction

Your Reaction:

As an experienced army man, I would like to point out that it DOES matter who got there first. Too many times during my career I have seen young men, giving their all (and ultimately their lives) to fight for what they believe in. This Everest scenario has a chilling (no pun intended) similarity to occasions out on the field where soldiers have died through bravery and have perished without recognition.
I feel it is vital, in maintaining the great British value of fair play, to acknowledge that chap Mallory, should he have been the first to scale the summit of our Earth's highest peak. I would consider it a travesty if Mallory is forgotten, despite his remarkable efforts, just as all those brave young men did while fighting for "blighty". Thank you for reading the views of a man who has seen, at first hand, the true worth of human life.
Col. Arthur Pint (Retired), UK

It really does matter for those who fearlessly fought against nature to get the answer to the question asked by the world 'what would it be like, when you are at top of the world?' In my opinion George Mallory and his colleague Andrew should be given as much respect and recognition as Hillary and Tenzing, for what they did was at the time when science and technology could barely help them on their way.
Sandeep Banga, India

I believe that it does matter who got there first because it is not simply a question of getting to the highest peak in the world. It is more the testimony of sheer will, courage, perseverance and above all the sheer ability to exceed all bounds to do it. Certainly the person who first does it is to be honoured for the sheer display of vision and character that many have though but none dared test.
As is famously said, "If you want to get to the top, you have to lose yourself along the way". The person who gets there first commands all the honour due to a rarity amongst humans, a hero...with vision, dedication and above all the courage to test it before anyone else.
Avanindra A. Joshi, USA

No not really, it's the time and conditions that should be considered. What tools and resources the teams had and how they utilised them is what admires me!!!! I hope that they find evidence that they did, it would be a fitting end to the search.
Tvoja Dusha, Yugoslavia

Surely the most fascinating thing about this whole tale is what is going on now. Whether the cameras will be found and what they might contain, that to me is the most incredible part of this story.
Haydn Morgan, UK

On any climb of a large mountain, such as an 8,000 metre peak, the descent is as difficult, if not more difficult than the ascent. I was on the Austrian women's expedition to Shishapangma in 1994. We got very close to the summit (less than 200 m) and turned back because we realised it was unlikely we could get up and back down. What matters is who got back down first.
Sibylle Hechtel, USA

It does not matter who reached there first. All I really want to know is what happened at the end of Mallory and Irvine's epic struggle with Everest. The battle of Mallory and Irvine with the mountain is a parable of the British colonial experience and as a member of a population still recovering from that experience it is important to me to know how the parable ends. The Guinness Book of Records sort of nonsense of who got there first is hardly an issue.
Amitabha Bagchi, India

It doesn't really matter, since Hillary and Tenzing's remarkable achievement came after 30 years of failed attempts. If Mallory and Irvine made it, well good for them, to climb to that height in the twenties in tweed jackets and without the benefits of 1950's equipment, is incredible.
Neil Redburn, Bermuda

Yes, it matters because Mallory and Irvine relied entirely on human spirit and not on equipment. Alexander the Great failed to return to Greece, that cannot deny the fact that he was the World's first great conqueror. If Armstrong and Aldrin had for some reason failed to return, they still would be the first men on moon.
Mahesh Kashya, India

Is it important? No. But keep in mind that as others before me have stated, getting home intact is crucial. There are many pursuits where recording achievement is taken seriously, free diving is one. Imagine if to enter the record books all that was required in that sport is for a person to reach a certain depth? If returning to the surface wasn't important, then I'm sure there are many uncelebrated free diving champions lying at the bottom next to the wreck of the Titanic as you read this.
John Douglas, New Zealand

No, it doesn't matter who reached the top first. What does matter is how this magnificent mountain is perceived and how these mountaineers relate to it. It is clear that most mountaineers do not want to 'conquer' anything. In fact many have been angry at this particular notion of mountaineering. It is far more a spiritual journey and this was emphasised by the woman who spoke on yesterdays One o'clock News. I think a photographer for the Mallory expedition who indicated there was much more to the notion, "because it's there". We need to recognise the environmental and spiritual relations evident in the Shirpas' relations with these places.
Barbara Humberstone, UK

I believe the truth deserves to be uncovered and proper recognition given to the explorer that truly reached the summit first. The proper name should be honoured and remembered for the valiant effort and willpower needed to reach earth's majestic and unforgiving peak.
Greg Friedland, USA

Saying it doesn't matter is like saying it doesn't matter who was first on the moon. Mallory put his life on the line (and lost) surely he should enjoy recognition and respect if it can be shown he was first using also prehistoric equipment. What an achievement if true.
Richard Masters, Scotland

What really counts is that both Mallory and Hillary had the courage to attempt the climbing. Both must have faced the essential loneliness of a challenge that was larger than themselves and, went for it, regardless.
Eduardo Puigrred__Chile

Why do you always refer to "Mallory", and to "Hillary"? Unless you are climbing the mountain solo, each person is part of a team. Ed Hillary has always said the "he and Tenzing climbed Everest" - as a team. And Tenzing was not just a "guide". He was a great mountaineer, chosen for the assault team because he was the best person to make up the team with Hillary.
John Titchener, New Zealand

Yes, it matters who got there first. I suppose we have to dig deeper into history than 1924 to find out if some locals did it in 1824, or even earlier.
Elijah Mwangi, South Africa

What does it matter who was first, how do we know if a Tibetan was not the first to climb Everest 200 years ago, what's more who really cares? There are more important issues in the world, that should be addressed, such as Kosovo, the Middle East, Africa. These issues are far more important than who was the first to the top of climb a mountain. Sir Edmund Hilary will always be the first person to survive a climb to the top of Everest.
Jason Lees, England

It matters because the Mallory/Irvine attempt eclipses all subsequent attempts because of its primitive equipment, and lack of modern support.
Mike Manser, Australia

It doesn't matter whether Mallory or Hillary got to the top first. But truth, for the record, does matter.
Norman Beazant, England

"Sir" Hillary and "Sherpa" Tenzing. Does Hillary have the courtesy to recognise Tenzing not as a servant but as a guide without whom he could have never reached the peak?
Aadarsh, India

The sheer ignorance of some of the comments about having to get down successfully to claim a first ascent is unbelievable. Obviously the comments were made by people whose only climb to date has been out of their armchairs. When you've climbed in the Himalayas as I have you may just understand what its all about - until then they should shut up.
Howard Davies, UK

Think of the man dying up there alone and what his last wish would have been, had he made the summit. It was a lonely place to leave this life, and if the mystery can be solved then surely he deserves a tribute.
Keith Melvin, Scotland

Does it matter who got there first? I think it does. If Mallory and Irvine had got to the top first it would be great for both history and mountaineering. Mallory was one of Sir Ed Hillary's heroes, the difference between these men is the Hillary and Tenzing made it down alive. What can make a great climbing epic is the ability to tell your story over a pint to your friends, Mallory did not get this far. In mountaineering greats survive. As for conquering Everest, I don't think one can.
John Ringrose, Ireland

What exactly are the "objective" findings going to base their findings on? Which direction his body was found pointing 75 years on, or what sort of bacteria were discovered under his toenails? Give it a rest. Hillary made it back alive and Mallory did not. Anyone can jump over a cliff, it's the man who returns who deserves the accolades. If people are going to revise history let's start at one million years ago. No lucid, intelligent, honest person can intelligently explain what's going on in Kosovo so let's drop the conjecture of what may or may not have happened 70 odd years ago on Everest.
Paul Forman, Canada

If Mallory and Irvine did make the summit via the North Ridge, Hillary and Tenzing will still be remembered for their first ascent of what is now the 'normal route' by the Western Cwm. In this sense both ascents were 'firsts' and should be recognised as such. Neither should we forget the other members of the teams who were vital to the success of expedition as a whole.
Dave Milling, UK

Well, neither were the first ... the sherpas had already scaled Everest hundreds of times ... it was the first time that a person from the Western world had achieved this feat, so of course it had to be chronicled as "history" - a most worthy achievement for the "world".
Natalia Shunmugan, Italy

It would be nice to know if a British climbing duo were the first to conquer Everest. To know if they died unsuccessfully on the way up or successfully on the way down does not really matter. But it would be nice for their families to know once and for all if the passion they had for mountaineering, that ultimately cost them their lives, had been fulfilled with every mountaineer on the planet's goal. May they rest in peace.
Albert V. Richardson, Sweden

If you consider who reached the top of Mt Everest, then it would definitely be better if we can set history straight on that point. If, on the other hand, we wish to find out who 'conquered' Everest then we would still have to stick with Sir Edmund and Sherpa Tenzing, as they went there and got back again safely.
Y Misquitta, USA

It definitely matters who got there first! It may be a shame for the family of Sir Edmund Hilary, but to think that someone could have conquered such a mountain in leather boots and tweed clothing is almost unbelievable - and shows tremendous courage and bravery.
Dave Ashcroft, UK

It does not matter who got to the top of Everest first, but it certainly does matter who will get there last. Mt Everest is becoming as heavily trafficked a tourist attraction as Yellowstone National Park. Leave this majestic natural reminder to our human insignificance in nature alone. It is best appreciated in Horizon TV programs.
Louis B Massano, USA

The challenge in mountain climbing is not just to get to the top but to make it down safely. No-one has ever tried to claim a peak on behalf of someone who died in the past, so why start now?
Sam Moore, UK

Whilst logic would suggest that it does not matter 'who got there first', human ego time and time again shows that it does. Maybe it isn't a bad thing, after all without it we would not have the drive to achieve some of the things we have.
Wendy, UK

Yes it does matter. The men that died on the mountain should have their achievement recorded in the history books.
Gary Brown, UK

What reasonable person would care about the time wasting escapades of people with too much time and money, let alone who did it first.
Frank Black, UK

To mountaineers and climbers, being first always matters.
What makes it even more amazing about Mallory's achievement is how high he and Irvine got with (by today's standards) very basic equipment, irrespective of whether they summited or not. But, getting up is only half the climb - you do have to get down again, especially when attempting high altitude mountains. Even if Mallory and Irvine - we mustn't forget him, a rope of climbers is a team, something everyone forgets when they talk of Hillary and Tenzing. I doubt Tenzing, if he were alive, would like to be thought of as Hillary's 'guide' - did summit, Tenzing and Hillary were the first to summit and get back alive.
Davy Virdee, UK

I guess it matters to the person who got there first.
Dan Connor, UK

Not withstanding the accompishment of Hillary and Tenzing, history should show accurately who first reached Everest's summit.
Tim Garfield, USA

Of course it matters who was first on the summit of Everest - if it didn't, then George Mallory would not have been up there in leather boots and tweed clothing in 1924, happily risking his life...
Malcolm Greig, Argentina

It is not a big matter who did it first. I think climbing mountains is personal challenge. I think it is not something that people compete about.
Yuichi Yamamoto, Japan

What better way to honour Mallory than to discover if he indeed was the first on the summit of Everest, and to have done it with the equipment of his day is indeed a tribute to their bravery and courage. However whether he did in fact make it to the summit or not, should not detract from the fact he was and is an inspiration to climbers and mountaineers all over the world.
Lisa Duffy, UK

Surely an essential element of conquering a mountain is to make it home in one piece? In which case Sir Edmund Hillary is correctly attributed with being the first to succeed in this feat.
H Moore, UK

The records may have to say that Mallory was first to the top, but they'll still have to admit he only managed half the job. Getting back down again is important too! But who is to say either Mallory or Hillary were the first? Mt Everest has been around a long long time, who is to say some Local Buddhist Hermit didn't make the climb many centuries before? It is just that Mallory and Hillary are from Western cultures where such feats are celebrated and recorded. Yes it does matter who got there. Not so much who was first. But mainly to them and their friends. To the rest of the world, it's just another irritating name to remember for that crucial 'Trivial Persuit' match!
Mike Williams, UK

It does not matter if Mallory and Irvine reached the summit first. What really counts is that Hillary and Tenzing made it back down again.
John Scott, Ireland

It really doesn't seem to matter a great deal who was first, especially after 75 years. But at the same time it is difficult not to agree with Mallory's son, who yesterday said that, as far as he was concerned, conquering Everest involved climbing the mountain, and then getting down successfully.
Mark Purcell, UK