Norman Clyde vs John Muir
- Buck Forester
- Founding Member
- Posts: 452
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:38 pm
- Experience: N/A
- Location: Lincoln, CA (Sacramento area)
- Contact:
Well, my pack is normally between 50-75lbs. Much of the extra weight comes from lugging around a couple full-size camera bodies and multiple L-glass lenses, filters, a tripod, and film. I also take lots of fishing gear. But I don't mind. I see it only getting heavier with time because I want to get a medium format camera or two.
- AldeFarte
- Topix Regular
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:46 pm
- Experience: N/A
- Location: Eklutna, Ak.
I have never been over 65lb. myself. A few years ago I had an epiphany and realized I was mortal. Since then I keep it near 50 ,or less. Can you imagine Clyde carrying as much as he could tie on? Those old farts were tough. Reading about Hikin Mikes adversity gives me a healthy perspective on how lucky we are to be able ramble around in the backcountry. So much to see in so little time. jls
- SandStorm
- Topix Acquainted
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:58 pm
- Experience: N/A
Re: Norman Clyde vs John Muir
The premise is flawed. Apples and oranges. But for what it's worth Muir has never inspired me personally. Clyde is the man I tell stories about around the fire.
- Wandering Daisy
- Topix Docent
- Posts: 6640
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 pm
- Experience: N/A
- Location: Fair Oaks CA (Sacramento area)
- Contact:
Re: Norman Clyde vs John Muir
I agree - apples and oranges. If you use the word naturalist, I would say Muir. Muir actually spent only a handfull of years exploring and being a naturalist in the Sierra - but he traveled worldwide. Clyde definitely wins if you consider pure exploration of the Sierra. If I could be "time reverse reincarnated" I would rather be Clyde because I am more of a mountaineer than naturalist.
-
- Topix Expert
- Posts: 890
- Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:28 pm
- Experience: N/A
- Location: Los Angeles
Re: Norman Clyde vs John Muir
I don't think it's so much apples and oranges, as it is an unfair question to Clyde. It seems clear to me (for the reasons George and others have noted) that Muir was a vastly more important naturalist. However, Clyde was the better mountaineer and climber, and more significant explorer of the Sierra topography. Both had incredible accomplishments, just in different areas.
- mokelumnekid
- Topix Expert
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:45 pm
- Experience: N/A
- Location: Seattle
- Contact:
Re: Norman Clyde vs John Muir
Agree with quentinc, Muir's observations on the evidence of the significance of glaciation were very important. He had a geologists eye, among other things, and his views shaped the work of the next wave of Sierra scientists. My take on his Sierra experiences were that he was an amazingly energetic and passionate explorer but not the mountaineer as we understand that phrase now, that Clyde was.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests