/ NEWS: More Hard & High Solos For Alex Honnold

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
UKC News - on 18 May 2010
[Alex Honnold, 5 kb]Alex Honnold, the well known American trad climber, has once again made an impressive and scary solo ascent, this time at Red Rocks in Nevada.

Honnold soloed up the Original Route on Rainbow Walls, a 300m 5.12b, then on the same day he went on to solo the route Prince of Darkness, a 220m 5.10c and down solo Wild Turkeys to get back to the floor after his ascent of Prince...

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=53471

Duncan Campbell - on 18 May 2010
In reply to UKC News: whoooahh
James Paul Robinson - on 18 May 2010
In reply to UKC News: I think his name in Latin would be Maximus Testiculos. Boy he has some composure.
highclimber - on 18 May 2010
In reply to James Paul Robinson: there is only so much soloing you can get away with. some amazing climbing though.
johncoxmysteriously - on 19 May 2010
In reply to highclimber:

Yeah, exactly. By all means do this stuff if that's what lights your fire, but I'd be happier if it weren't in the papers.

jcm
Enty - on 19 May 2010
In reply to UKC News:

"Though he said he "wasn't in any hurry" during the free solo, Honnold took just over an hour to climb the route's 14 pitches"


Bugger! It took me a day and a half......

E
Franco Cookson on 19 May 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I don't know. It all pretty impressive and important stuff, even if it appears a little mad.
john arran - on 19 May 2010
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

So you'd prefer media censorship of any ascent that doesn't fit your idea of responsible? What if someone were (genuinely!) to onsight Indian Face - wouldn't that be similarly dangerous? Or is using whatever gear is available the deciding factor?

My view is that it's all climbing. Climbing necessarily involves danger and personally deciding upon an acceptable level of risk. Some will reduce risk by sportclimbing, some by leading only well-protectable trad routes, some by leading only easy scary routes. Some may only ever top-rope. Some will solo hard routes with a similarly low level of actual risk due to a level of climbing competence and judgement that others will find hard to comprehend. I say why draw the line anywhere. If climbing (trad, at least) has a common theme at all it's personal responsibility and risk management. We don't need the media to be telling us what is and isn't reasonable.
Serpico on 19 May 2010 - unallocated.star.net.uk
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to highclimber)
>
> Yeah, exactly. By all means do this stuff if that's what lights your fire, but I'd be happier if it weren't in the papers.
>
> jcm

Oh no, it's Jenscoxmysteriously...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> but I'd be happier if it weren't in the papers.

What next John? No pictures in the mags of helmet-less climbers?

ads.ukclimbing.com
Mike Stretford - on 19 May 2010
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
> [...]
>
> What next John? No pictures in the mags of helmet-less climbers?

Or indeed any roped ascents of routes with ground fall potential.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.