Following the recent speed record set by Nicolas Hojac and Philipp Brugger on the three north faces of Eiger, Mönch and Jungfrau, questions have arisen about Stephan Siegrist's previous presentation.
The center of the inconsistencies that Nicolas Hojac himself reported to Lacrux.com, a subsequent change to the documentation of the North Face Trilogy by Stephan Siegrist and Ueli Steck in 2004. The focus of the discussion is the chosen route along the Jungfrau North face.
The two projects in brief
To understand the controversy that has arisen, we will briefly introduce the original project from 2004, which the most recent speed ascent of Nicolas Hojac and Philipp Brugger took as a model.
21 years ago, it was the plan of the two professional alpinists Stephan Siegrist and Ueli Steck, to climb the three north faces of Eiger, Mönch and Jungfrau one after the otherIdeally, they wanted a time under 24 hours Due to difficulties, especially on the last of the three mountains (Jungfrau), the target of 25 hours of completion was not reached.
Stephan Siegrist documented the project in his book «Stephan Siegrist – Balance between Mountains and Everyday Life» (pages 112,113) and on his Website. The routes chosen in both sources were the Heckmair on Eiger, the Lauper on Mönch as well as the Lauper at the Jungfrau mentioned. Regarding the last wall, he mentions in his book that this was actually the easiest wall to climb but ultimately presented the greatest difficulties, and on his website, he says that neither of them knew the route.
The Hojac/Brugger rope team followed exactly this route sequence as a model and set themselves the goal of beating the time as much as possible. The two succeeded in doing this on April 5, 2025, in 15 hours and 30 minutes. The project was extensively documented, the times and tracking data were recorded and are available at Strava publicly accessible.
The story could have ended successfully at this point, but things turned out differently. We'll retrace the sequence of events below.
First inconsistencies emerge
Immediately after reports about the new record time were published, Stephan Siegrist wrote an email to Red Bull, Nicolas Hojac's sponsor and communications coordinator.
In this message, which Lacrux.com has obtained, Siegrist addresses the generally difficult comparability of mountaineering performances, as they depend to a very large extent on the conditions. The central part of the email, however, is his statement, The Hojac/Brugger rope team chose a different route on the Jungfrau than Siegrist/Steck, which means that the two projects are not comparable.
According to Siegrist, there was no new record. Contrary to the sequence Heckmair-Lauper-Lauper described in the above-mentioned book, Siegrist and Steck would have chosen the sequence Heckmair-Lauper-Y-Couloir.
Siegrist's request to Red Bull: They should please publish a corresponding rebuttal and point out that the same routes were not chosen. He himself does not want to go public.
Siegrist also mentions that he provided Hojac with information about the 2004 route selection prior to the record attempt to support him. Hojac confirms this – however, it only concerned the upper part of the Lauper. Here, Siegrist advised keeping further to the left. There was no mention of the fact that the Lauper hadn't been climbed at all.
Hojac/Brugger decided against this variant because they already knew the Lauper route from an exploratory tour.
Description of the events according to Nicolas Hojac
The further course of events was described to Lacrux.com in a comprehensive statement by Nicolas Hojac, in which he documented numerous contradictions based on emails and text messages. Since Siegrist and Hojac have known each other well for a long time, have been on three expeditions together, and share an equipment sponsor in Mammut, Nicolas Hojac tried to clarify the matter directly with his compatriotHe therefore asked for details of the 2004 project, especially the chosen route on the Jungfrau. Siegrist then sent Hojac a picture and description showing a route significantly to the left of the Lauper route (and which does not match the previous documentation, see above).
Siegrist also stated that he chose this route because the Lauper is not part of the north face. He justifies this with the representation in the corresponding SAC guide, in which the Lauper is placed before the north face routes, visually separated (not underlined), and also clearly designated as the "Northwestern Summit Ridge (Lauper Route)" – and not as the "North Face Route." This is despite the fact that Siegrist himself has referred to the route as such in his communications for 21 years, and other well-known alpinists, such as Roger Schäli, have clearly assigned this route to the north face. zurechnen.
After Hojac points out the significant discrepancy with the long-standing documentation, a small but crucial detail is changed on Stephan Siegrist's website: The Lauper Route mentioned above becomes the Y-Couloir (which cannot be found under this name in the SAC guide for the Jungfrau region).
The route is largely identical to the Siegrist-Weber from 2001 and thus significantly more difficult than the Lauper (for classification: Lauper: very difficult, Siegrist-Weber: extremely difficult). The differences are easily reconstructed with the help of a web archive program, if one looks at the variant previously with the variant afterwards compares. In a even later In this version, pictures from the route also disappeared.
Afterwards, Hojac received another text message from Siegrist, in which he named two of the supporters at the time as potential witnesses for the chosen route. He added the detail that they had "We even lowered another 50 meters of rope because we were struggling with difficulties."
In summary, the statement, which Nicolas Hojac sent us: The documentation was subsequently adapted, and thus the 2004 project was reinterpreted in such a relevant way, that there would no longer be any comparability with the 2004 and 2025 inspections. In doing so, Siegrist is attempting to undermine the basis of the latest record.
Nicolas Hojac's portrayal shows again and again Contradictions in Siegrist's communicationA previously unknown route (as described on the website) becomes the Y-Couloir route, which essentially corresponds to the Siegrist/Weber route*. This route is more difficult than the Heckmair on the Eiger, and at the same time, Siegrist's book states that the Jungfrau is the easiest of the three walls (which would be true for the Lauper). After 21 years of consistent documentation, always including the Lauper route as a north face route, the Lauper route's status as a north face route has now been denied.
And finally, as a new detail, a previously unmentioned in the classic documentation, inadmissible assistance (the rope) is mentioned.
Counterstatement by Stephan Siegrist
When asked about the topic by Lacrux.com, Stephan Siegrist does not deny the discrepanciesHe was well aware that the subsequent change would have a negative connotation. However, the information now adjusted would correspond to the truth. The adjustment was made to make it clear that the 2004 and 2025 projects were not comparable.
The route they chose was the aforementioned Y-Couloir or Siegrist/Weber, not the Lauper. At that time, they climbed the lower, easier part of the wall, sometimes to the left, sometimes to the right of existing north face routes, depending on the conditions they found, then climbed towards the Lauper and from there again to the left into the north face, where they then lost a lot of time - and because of the difficult conditions, finally accepted the help of the rope from above.
As for the deleted images, they were taken on another occasion during the Lauper route and were therefore now logically removed when the documentation was updated.
Previous reporting was so inaccurate because, in Siegrist/Steck's view, the project was not approached as a record attempt (there hadn't been one before), and was also viewed as a partial failure (the targeted 24-hour time was not achieved). Therefore, the topic was not communicated more extensively at the time. The present documentation was never intended to provide a precisely defined template for further speed climbs.
In addition, he had clearly communicated to Nicolas Hojac in the run-up to the record attempt that they had not been on the Lauper route in 2004, and had even given him suggestions for appropriate equipment.
Attempt at an assessment
As Stephan Siegrist himself writes in his email to Red Bull – Transparent communication and honesty are essential in mountaineering, especially to serve as a role model for younger generations of mountaineers. This statement can be endorsed with a clear conscience.
In a sport that exists without a clearly defined playing field, referees, and precise, multi-page rulebook, transparency and honesty are essential.
Especially when, as in this case, it's not just about personal bests for recreational mountaineers, but about professional mountaineering. Where the evaluation of projects is about media exposure, sponsorships, and ultimately, money. The central question is: Did Stephan Siegrist live up to his own standards in this case?
A used auxiliary rope that wasn't mentioned at all in the two central communication points (book and website)? Definitely an important detail that should have been clearly highlighted, as it fundamentally diminishes the value of the climb.
The undisputed and easily proven subsequent adaptation of the documentation must be viewed extremely critically from an alpine historical perspective.
If documentation is subsequently changed, this should be marked transparently and, ideally, explained.
The fact that the Lauper was always communicated as the ascent route until April 2025 is at least incompletely documented. This can be partially excused by Stephan Siegrist's comment that they considered the project a failure and therefore did not document and communicate it more extensively. However, the statement that they did not communicate the project more widely contradicts the fact that, on the one hand, it made its way into a book and, on the other, is listed among the highlights on Stephan Siegrist's website.
Regarding the question of what information was shared before the tour, accounts vary widely. An objective assessment by Lacrux.com is not possible, as this agreement was made over the phone. It is therefore a case of one person's word against another's. One thing is clear: at this point, at the latest, Maximum transparency and clear communication with Nicolas Hojac is a requirement of sporting fairness.
We certainly hope that this unpleasant controversy can serve as an example for all professional mountaineers on what to pay attention to in order to avoid misunderstandings and bad blood: transparent and honest communication that adds nothing and leaves nothing out.
Counterstatement Ralf Weber, July 08.07.2025, XNUMX
At the point marked with * in the text there was originally the note “When Hojac asked Ralf Weber, he said that the route had never been called Y-Couloir"On July 06.07.2025, XNUMX, the Lacrux.com editorial team received an email from Ralf Weber. In it, Weber corrected that this statement had not been made in this way.
There was a telephone conversation with Nicolas Hojac in mid-May, when Weber was on tour with guests as a mountain guide. The conversation lasted a minute and a half. He was asked general questions about routes in the Jungfrau, but the background to the question was not explained to him. He therefore assumed the questions referred to routes to the left of the Gabarrou.
Counterstatement Nicolas Hojac, 09.07.2025:
The telephone conversation with Ralf Weber took place on May 28, 2025, at 11:25 a.m. and lasted about a minute. According to Ralf Weber, he was cooking lunch for his children. I had two questions for Ralf. 1. Did he know of a route called the Y-Couloir on the Jungfrau North Face? He denied this question. I then asked the second question: had they given their route, which is listed in the SAC guidebook as the Siegrist-Weber Route, a name? The answer to this was also a resounding no. Ralf then told me to contact someone who writes guidebooks and documents such things. According to the SAC guidebook, there is no Gabarrou route on the Jungfrau North Face either.
That might interest you
- Record on Eiger, Mönch & Jungfrau: Nicolas Hojac and Adrian Zurbrügg with a new best time
- Duel On The Abyss | Netflix documentary about Ueli Steck & Dani Arnold
+ + +
Credits Cover image: Adobe Stock
Unfortunately, more and more spectacular things have to be done for the media, sponsors and other vultures.
Simply acknowledging the other person's achievements - it doesn't even have to be said out loud - that's completely sufficient.
In my opinion, this pursuit of merit has no place in mountaineering.
Hats off to the performance of both rope teams.
Every amateur mountaineer who finds joy in the mountains on the weekend, after his normal working week, deserves just as much respect.
All of this casts a very bad light on Stefan Siegrist and sounds completely unbelievable. It's more like he wants to prevent someone else from holding the record, which isn't even supposed to be one, at all costs. I don't know him personally, but I wouldn't have thought he needed something like that.
Fortunately, we don't have any major problems.
Two different routes were climbed. Why are they being directly compared, like apples to oranges? A pseudo-record is being communicated and exploited in the media, thus a completely legitimate objection from Siegrist.
What's truly sad and unsportsmanlike, however, is the public denunciation of former mentors and supporters (with a 50-page document sent to the media) that Hojac has unleashed here. This bears no relation to the mountaineering significance of this climb and ultimately only creates losers. Aren't such disagreements among acquaintances resolved directly rather than via a semi-informed public?
Maybe it's time to seek real mountaineering challenges instead of focusing on pseudo-records... and otherwise there are mountain races for direct comparison.
“Aren’t such disagreements among acquaintances resolved directly rather than via a semi-informed public?”
I see it the same way – only chronologically it was clearly Siegrist who deliberately did not take the direct route first, but wrote to the common(!) sponsor Red Bull “behind the scenes”:
"Siegrist's demand to Red Bull: They should please publish a corresponding rebuttal and point out that the same routes were not chosen. He himself does not want to go public."
This approach alone says a lot about the character!
The portion of French fries at the Jungfraujoch during the Hojac/Zurbrügg climb: Unauthorized snack? Doping? Time limit?
Whatever. As long as the first person to climb harder, higher, and faster is the better, manipulation will continue. Ever since the debate surrounding Maestri's exploits on Cerro Torre, every "heroic deed" in mountaineering can be questioned.
If you could fall to your death twice, someone would definitely try to see if they could do it a third time. A RECORD! Just to get media coverage...
I at least hope that both Steck/Siegrist and Hojac/Zurbrügg had a great day in the mountains!
NB: There are other topics that could be addressed, for example, the enchainments of north faces and the route between them by bike. I've seen reports of well-trained mountaineers on great bikes, but no north-face-capable backpacks on their backs... Anyone who suspects some kind of "outside help" here would be a scoundrel.