The First Solo Antarctic Traverse

An adrenaline junkie risks his life to become an obscure asterisk in a history that no one really cares about. Bravo.

Good to see Roberts still kicking the hornets nest

I'm not too sure what the deal is with the NYT on this Antarctic "crossing." People seemed to be enlightened by David Roberts' piece, a great and always honest writer. Some seem surprised by what he said. I've twice attempted related, equally civil, comments about this crossing and never got my post approved. It's odd it took someone of Roberts' stature to get the truth out. I have also pointed out that the geographical pole, about which Earth rotates, has no relationship to the center of Antarctica, which has it's own centers, including the Pole of Inaccessibility and its center of mass. Too many adventurers are intentionally confusing the two, claiming a trip to the Earth's pole somehow is connected to crossing a continent. Keep bringing on the stories. But stick to journalism. Leave out the hype.

The fact that Ousland's sled weighed close to that of Rudd and O'Brady with heavier gear and doing twice the distance is of interest to me. Can anyone shed any light on that subject?

I've been trying to figure out how traveling 925 miles constitutes a "traverse" or "crossing" of a continent roughly the size of the U.S. and Mexico combined. Now I understand. O'Brady and Rudd defined those terms arbitrarily and in a self serving manner. Moreover, I'll bet most people who have cross country skied would agree machine made tracks most definitely "assist" and "aid" their efforts. Big time, when the tracks cover a third to a half of the journey. Misleading advertising.

I was at McMurdo Station in 1997 when Børge Ousland skied into station, with no fanfare, no blog posts, just one man soloing across the continent. Børge remains one of my heroes to this day. Thanks for writing that article. The recent partial crossings by the other skiers are remarkable efforts (I couldn't do it), but don't approach Mr. Ousland's achievement.

Thanks for this opinion piece. The NYT was wrong publishing this series of articles about these two adventurers claiming to "race" for the first unsupported antarctic crossing. O'Brady was posting every day on facebook, so much for no support.

As both the Ross and Ronnie shelves are land ice and part of the continent then Ousland is truly the first and should continue to be recognized as such. The route he took was from sea/land to land/sea. O’Brady travelled only half the distance and was aided by technology, daily emotional support, (GPS, tractor trails, satellite phone) and the knowledge that emergency help was just a few minutes away. False claims and alternate truth have unfortunately seeped into US daily life. I congratulate you for your endeavors but as a true explorer you were well aware that Ousland had already successful completed a ‘true and pure unaided crossing’. Thank you NYT for presenting the truth

thank you for bringing history to light again in describing mr. ousland’s amazing feat. comparing “unaided”...modern gps, better, lighter gear, psychologically uplifting daily encouragement from instant communication vs “aided”...a primitive improvised small “sail” (which seems to me more ingenuous and self reliant) while covering twice the distance, makes no sense at all. truly remarkable physical feats all around, but to me, the mental, spiritual and adventursome journey leaves no comparison. On a much smaller scale, it reminds me of comparing those who hike the PCT for the benefit of solitude vs those ultralighters who need to run the trail under a certain time to claim their personal best....and make sure the world knows about it every inch along the way

This is typical. The Norwegians's success has always been treated as less. The narrative from the Amundsen-Scott race was driven by the British and Scott, who died because of incompetence, became a hero. Amundsen's trek was diminished. because used skis and dogs after all and Scott and his crew did the noble thing and tried to walk.

Thanks to the author for writing this piece. It helped me better understand a form of adventure I knew little about before reading. As a climber, I also think about records being broken - largely in a different context than those who covered the same ground earlier thanks to new gear, changes to the landscape, etc. A friend once said to me "style doesn't matter, so long as you are honest about it". I'd also add it that it shows a degree of humility to show respect for those who came before us and showed us what might be possible.

Well done, Dave Roberts. While we can appreciate that O'Brady and Rudd accomplished a difficult task, and particularly honor Rudd's tribute to his compatriot, we recognize these efforts are not in the same category as that of Ousland. It is not a criticism but an observation to note that O'Brady is an adventurer of the attention-seeking sort, and his trip could be viewed as a useful first step. If he desires to surpass Ousland's accomplishment, he can retrace Ousland's route (or something longer, such as the pole of inaccessibility noted here by Greenwood) with the same gear he just used for his practice run.

What about the first three men who unaided skied from the edge of the Weddel Sea on Berliner Island to the South Pole in 1994. Three Norwegian friends Odd Harold Hauge, Lars Ebbeden and Cato Zaharia Pedersen. “Unarmed To The South Pole, no one had ever done it before unaided.

Please look at the map. The difference between the routes speeks for itself. To claim that Ousland was "assisted" because of his "ski sail" seems ridiculous, with all due respect to O'Brady et al

The idea that what O'Brady and Rudd, or even Ousland, compares in any way to what Scott and Amundsen did, apart from their all doing it in Antarctica, is foolish. All the modern ones had access to up to date weather forecasting, clothing, and equipment and knowledge that if anything went wrong they could call in help. Scott and Amundsen and the men who accompanied them had none of these advantages. It's like saying someone who sails across the Atlantic alone is similar to Columbus and his men.

Good thing I read this article. I would have gone on believing that the O'Brady, the millennial facebooking, instagramming, humble-bragging, self promoter was actually the first. Not to take away from the feat, but what a joke! Ousland is a man among boys!!

Thank you, David Roberts, a great writer, always honest. In no way was this a crossing of Antarctica, as the map shows. Part the confusion is geographical. The South Pole is one end of the axis on which the Earth rotates. It just happens to lie on the continent of Antarctica. In the meantime, Antarctica has its own center, with definitions varying. The southern pole of inaccessibility (the point in Antarctica furthest from any ocean) as it was defined in 1958, is 878 km (546 mi) from the South Pole. See the very telling map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_of_Inaccessibility_(Antarctic_research_station) Then there's the center of gravity, which I take to be the physical center of mass: The exact centre of Antarctica is located 968 km from the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and 485 km from the southern pole of inaccessibility. http://www.estherkokmeijer.nl/A-Quest-for-the-Centre-of-Gravity-of-Antarctica A trip to the South Pole and back to water is not a crossing of Antarctica. A trip to the South Pole where the travelers then almost double back to the coast is even less of a crossing. A trip by which travelers follow any portion iof South Pole Overland Traverse track is hardly a self-supported trek. Way too much hype for the story. The journalist seems to have just mouthed whatever the travelers claimed. That's not journalism.

Ousland was the first.

We congratulate Colin O’Bradly [sic] with his achievements in Antarctica.” But he added that he “was the first person to ski alone across Antarctica.” As he told me in an email: “It should not be necessary for me to have to stand up and fight for my ‘honor.’ I believe that I should be credited as the first to have crossed Antarctica solo and unsupported from coast to coast. Period.” I agree, Mr. Ousland was the first to cross Antarctica from coast to coast, solo and unsupported. It's a shame that Mr. O'brien did not even give an honorable mention to Ousland.

When I first saw O'Brady's and Rudd's route, I thought... that ain't crossing Antarctica, that's just plain cheating. Ousland actually crossed Antarctica.

Achievement? We should know better at this point than to turn everywhere into an ego challenge. How about just leaving some parts of the world uninfected by people? That would be a more impressive achievement.

Here,here! Well done giving credit where credit is due. Of course the journeys don’t compare. Mr Ousland is the real Mc Coy.

It is heartening that NYT has published David Roberts article which adds much perspective. The argument that Roberts makes in comparing the accomplishments of Ousland to O'Brady and Rudd is wholly convincing. Without comparing the 'levels of Hell' that each of the trekkers experienced, Ousland's accomplishment is just straight up more impressive. More importantly to me personally, it was beautifully elegant. For goodness sake, this sail; no sail discussion exposes human silliness. I would award the asterisk to Mr. O'Brady. As to the notion of "impossible", it can't be seen that way when Mr. Ousland had already demonstrated that it was possible. David Roberts' has strong credibility in the realm of this discussion. His own adventures, particularly in Alaska, were arguably more hazardous and notable than the O'Brady - Rudd traverses. Joseph Genualdi Kansas City, MO

Not surprised that people would claim their "firsts" despite facts to the contrary. Standards are very low in many fields and industries.

Thanks, so much, for this perspective. "Following last week’s outpouring of congratulations to the American and the Briton, some veteran observers of the Antarctic scene wondered whether their feats should be starred with asterisks of their own." Veteran observers of the Antarctic scene? Do these folks watch paint dry, or grass grow, in the off season? I'll never understand what drives folks, in this day and age, to climb Mt. Everest or seek the headwaters of the Amazon or otherwise engage in exploits once unimaginable but now enabled by GoreTex and GPS and satellite technology that allows them to call relatives, or their PR agent, when they accomplish whatever it is they set out to do and say "I did it, please alert the media." I have a lot more respect for folks who do lesser things more quietly. What, after all, is "conquering" the South Pole compared to riding a bicycle around the world and figuring out a way across Afghanistan without getting oneself blown to bits, or beheaded? That sort of thing is the modern-day equivalent of exploring the Himalaya in waxed cotton and wool. In the meantime, Ousland has my vote. He went further and had more stones, it seems, than either of these other fellows.

Given the path difference - road vs no road- and the Trek - water to water - Ousland has the better claim.

I read--and was amazed by--"The Worst Journey in the World" several years ago.... and I recommend it for anyone interested in how much torture a person can endure. My vote is with Ousland.... while O'Brady and Rudd deserve notice, they arbitrarily started well inside Antartica, and finished short of the coast. Let the history books note Borge Ousland's amazing accomplishment! as the first.

So if I opened my jacket to catch the wind my trek becomes assisted?

Borge Ousland deserves the credit as the first man to traverse Antarctica unaided by modern technology. Thanks for pointing out his journey in 1996.

Thank you for this article. I was not aware of the vast differences in the achievements. I guess playing by the same rules doesn’t apply in modern day “firsts.”

What about the first three men who unaided skied from the edge of the Weddel Sea on Berliner Island to the South Pole in 1994. Three Norwegian friends, Odd Harold Hauge, Lars Ebbeden and Cato Zahl Peterson. No one had ever done it before completely unaided and across the untouched snow and ice. Cato lost his arms in an accident as a child and thus their expedition was titled “Unarned to the South Pole.”

Sorry to sound a negative note, but I don't see why these are magnificent accomplishments. I read this article right after reading David Brooks's column mocking the obsession with self that pervades our society, and I see a connection between the two. The men performing these feats of physical endurance are not expanding human knowledge or discovering previously unknown territory. They are not bringing aid to an isolated population or drawing attention to an environmental crisis. Their only purpose appears to be competition -- doing more, going faster, or getting there first. In other words, beating the other guy. I just don't see why an act of self-gratification should be hailed as a profound human achievement, regardless of how much perseverance and stamina is displayed.

Unaided? I’m not sure what definition to use. By my reckoning, Mr. Ousland’s accomplishment was the far greater one. Used a sail, ok, but didn’t use a man-made track and travelled roughly twice as far. My hat’s off to you Mr. Ousland!

Thanks for providing detailed information that clearly descrt who first completed a grueling , actual sea coast to sea coast unsupported crossing. While the achievement by all three men is remarkable, the great distance covered by Ousland—and with no smooth tractors lanes, no outside contact, etc. at certain points —is awe-inspiring.

I'm glad to read this article. In reading stories about O'Brady, it is too easy to glance quickly past the comments about a "wind-aided crossing" that occurred in the past. I certainly fell victim to that. Nor did I realize that Ousland's journey was twice as long! His is clearly the more epic adventure. To give Ousland credit for his accomplishment shouldn't take away from O'Brady and Rudd's, but for them to claim prominence over Ousland denies him the glory he deserves.

'In the tweet announcing his finish, Mr. O’Brady claimed, “As I pulled my sled over this invisible line, I accomplished my goal: to become the first person in history to traverse the continent of Antarctica coast to coast solo, unsupported and unaided.”' What does 'unaided' mean? If I run in just a pair of shorts along my local beach at the edge of the sea, then at first sight this might seem to qualify as an unaided run. But wait! If the wind is behind me, then it will help propel me along. If I'm in a race, and there are spectators cheering me on, this gives me succour, encourages me to run faster. In a road race, I don't race bare foot. I'll wear ultra-lightweight racing shoes and thin socks. I'll wear a wristwatch to check my pace against the 1 km route markers. If it's very cold, I'll wear a sleeved thermal vest and lightweight racing gloves. No human will ever cross the Antarctic from sea to sea, barefoot, naked and alone, without a sledge of provisions. Hence, to claim that an Antarctic crossing is unaided is unsupportable.

Nice article and I concur with Mr. Ousland's assessment. I found it odd that Mr. Brady stated he did the "impossible." As in Mission Impossible? Hyperbole at best.

This is excellent. I was hoping Ousland's trek would be redisocverd and highlighted for what it is, the first unsupplied and unaided solo trek across Antarctica. I was not aware of the South Pole Overland Traverse. It is clearly an improved roadway, an Antarctic super highway. Rudd and O'Brady should both be disqualified from the "unaided" category. The road is outside aid. It was certainly of more advantage than a sled sail, which is a historic item of equipment, just like the little sails for kayaks. The little sail was part of Ousland's equipment from the onset.

Wow. Thank you for sharing your copious knowledge, replete with details (where the devil lives, we should all remember!) and map, Mr. Roberts. Everyone of these men deserves proper recognition.

I admire the courage, determination, resilience, and preparation of all who attempt such feats. They show us what is possible. In the end, however, I agree with Mr. Ousland's sentiments.

Commander Scott gained more fame in death than Amundsen did in success in 1910/11. This was a triumph of British marketing and the elegant stoicism expressed in the words in Scott's logbook, found when their bodies were recovered the following austral spring. Amundsen was, by all accounts, an unpleasant man who hated self-promotion at the same time he was jealous of both Scott and Shackleton's fame despite failure. There are many great first-person accounts of Scott's expedition, including the most fabulous and literary account by Apsley Cherry-Garrard's "Worst Journey in the World", but I encourage all to read Amundsen's autobiography "My Life as an Explorer", which outlines his great accomplishments, tinged with his grievances - that is, if you can manage to find it! As an Antarctic scientist happy to fly in to field sites rather than man-haul my gear I applaud all for their demonstrated mental will and physical strength. I'll never understand the drive to do something like that, but hats-off to them.