RRC Archives

Wes wrote: There is nothing inherently wrong with free soloing, high balling, fast and light alpine or hard aid climbing. It is just something you have to plug into the risk/reward formula. Hopefully, you are honest about the math, otherwise you could end up in a bad place.

Well unfortunately soloists are not honest about the math, or they simply accept the fact that they will eventually deck out. It is simple math - there is always a probability of falling, eventually we will all fall. If we are not roped, 100% chance of decking. With a rope there is some small probability that our protection will fail - so yes we have to accept this risk.

Regarding alpine climbing - fast and light is not really an ego-driven attempt to take a sport that is dangerous and make it more dangerous. It does increase some risks, but it reduces exposure time on these alpine mountains, which decreases the chance of being caught in bad weather, getting killed by avalanche, etc...

michaelarmand wrote:If we are not roped, 100% chance of decking.

On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
-chuck palahniuk

Wes wrote:

caribe wrote:

Wes wrote:In the long run we all die. We only have a choice in how we live.

Wes wrote:saying someone is being unsafe because the free solo /highball isn't always true, either.

Here is where we go in opposite directions. Pushing it without adequate protection is irresponsible.

Wes wrote:Then why not just toperope all the time? Same movement, much less risk. Or, only lead at 2.3453 number grades below your max on TR?

I choose not to toprope because 'We only have a choice in how we live.' Also leading meets the current level of acceptable risk for the community. The free soloist will likely die early. If we were all free soloists, climbing would definitely be banned on all National Park land and I think access to public land would also be very tenuous.

Call me nuts but I find toproping and leading to be very different activities. The two cords are in your way; unclipping is a pain. I don't think the difference is due entirely to the risk factor. We hopefully do the risk assessment on the ground. When I am leading with an attentive and able belayer, falling is not the foremost thing on my mind.

All climbing involves some risk. But it's pretty easy to mitigate the risks down to nearly zero for most styles of climbing. People take risks to either prove themselves in front of friends/strangers/chicks, or to become famous, to get a rush, or just to feel the sense of accomplishment after defeating said artificial danger.

Who really cares? There is no safety. If you want to be completely safe, don't leave your house. But then again, not leaving your house pretty much guarantees that you die of obesity or heart disease or some other affliction of the couch goer.

With regards to the video in question, with about 5-6 more pads, and a couple more spotters he could've made that climb relatively safe. He didn't bother. That qualifies as stupidity to me, but perhaps he didn't want to make it safe for fear of ruining the intensity and thus the rush/accomplishment/awe attained on a bold ascents. Who knows.

caribe, Do you wear a helmet when leading? Wouldn't it be irresponsible not to? Do you wear one while road biking? Do you not wear one climbing because of ego or peer pressure or not wanting to be different?

And, as far as it goes - there are plenty of routes outside the red (some of which I have done or would like to do) that require basically free soloing long pitches of mellow(er) climbing. The OR on whitesides, for instance.

I have seen plenty of near misses, along with a few bad injuries. The worst one I was a part of, the guy decked from 30+ feet while on TR (following a mulit pitch route). So, even top roping isn't 100 percent safe. My worst climbing injury happened in a gym - tired at the end of a night, didn't listen to beta, mis read a move and fell. Hit the side of the pad, rolled my ankle and was out of climbing for a month or two.

I am espousing the opinion that climbing unprotected is basically Russian roulette. I imagine one gets an adrenaline rush from doing Russian roulette, but the question is: is this rush worth the risk and the knowledge that one has a very limited time to play this game before the odds take over. If the guy pulling the trigger knows the risk, the game is his, but I am leaving.

I say, be honest about the odds and climb as responsibly as you can while meeting your needs and optimizing your enjoyment. There is risk of death in climbing responsibly. However, I feel safer roped up and on route than I do on the road. There are people out there of various abilities in various mental states. That turn off 715 onto Big Andy freaks me out. Shit, as far as being on the road goes, about 1 out of 100 people have issues with epilepsy. I feel safer in an airplane than I do on the road.

Regarding the free soloist/ ultra high baller in the community, I begrudgingly applaud them and I feel free to express my opinion about how reckless they are while I admire their cajones. However if they try to say that their risk and the average climber's risk are similar, I'll tell them they are just plain wrong.

caribe wrote:I am espousing the opinion that climbing unprotected is basically Russian roulette..

This is simply not true. You really don't seem to understand this, but it isn't for me to convince you otherwise.

Wes wrote:

caribe wrote:I am espousing the opinion that climbing unprotected is basically Russian roulette..

This is simply not true. You really don't seem to understand this, but it isn't for me to convince you otherwise.

Yes, Wes, we could likely go round and round about this, but we are going to have to decide to hold different opinions. I also disagree with you about your mandate to change my mind. Changing one another minds and getting to points of introspection is why people invented language and certainly the purpose of information in general. Persuasive conversation is the foundation of societal structure, good advertising and successful come-on lines. The drive to do this is probably somewhere in our DNA.

Judge rules.......

Wes is right.

Brentucky wrote:I'm with Wes, and his last argument is the overall nail in the coffin for me. You define your own acceptable limit of risk.

I am not going to take someone's right to play Russian roulette. That is not what this is about. It is about sustainability. Are we likely to make it to grandparent-hood climbing responsibly? Are we likely to do so free-soloing? Again, my argument was not to tell someone who I consider reckless to desist.

I am with you guys as far as freedom is concerned.

The yawning gulf between Wes and I concerns the nature/ risk+consequences of activities such as free soloing and high balling at one's limit. Keep doing it and you are going to die or wish you had. Those still around to discuss the impact of the impact are the coins that landed on their tails instead of their heads.