UKC

After the recent death of John B and Dan O(although not soloing) do you think as a father soloing can be seen as a selfish pursuit where no regards to your loved ones is taking into account. A friend of mine soloed "The Fuhrer, The Risk Business and many more both in winter and summer". J Lines another extreme solo er says"it's like a drug and like any drug becomes addictive should we have rehabs for these people before they may or may not loose there lives, leaving loved ones to pick up the pieces. I am just getting back into soloing because it's for me the ultimate expression of climbing. Shall there come a time when it's banned? Should we be able to solo anything we choose? On sight soloing is this the pinnacle of climbing?

Comments please?

In reply to The brainn: You can't ban anything in climbing, we just have ethical rules we all try to stick to, so you can try to solo anything you want to. If the majority had the power to dictate what and how we can do things then top roping would probably be beanned, although I myself don't disagree with it.

I don't consider onsight soloing to be the pinnacle of climbing as it is never done with someone climbing on the limit, it is always within someones capabilities.

Yes if you fall off you might die but thats for each to think of what they will. I don't really have sympathy for people who f*ck themselves up while soloing, you know the score and decide to take the chance, if you aren't prepared then you are more stupid than brave.

I've got cramp, rocks have come off in my hand, I've been attacked by birds n all sort that I couldn't have predicted and made me fall off routes, if I'd not been tied in then I'd be dead.
I enjoy climbing but I have enough sense to know that I'd be a dick to kill myself for the sakes of climbing without ropes, climbing isn't that important to me (and I don't think it should be to anyone), if it was so dangerous that I felt in danger every time I went out then I probably wouldn't do it.
It is no more dangerous than many other sports when tied in and so I carry on..

In reply to chickenpox:


is that for you?? or for everyone, as I have soloed quite a few things right at my limit onsight.

In reply to The brainn: we should be able to solo anything we wish, but having family and children reliant on you would probably make me think twice.

You can argue that its selfish or not selfish, it doesnt matter. What we shouldnt be doing however is making decisions for others. Our world needs regulations, but sometimes people get carried away and start over regulating. Why should a majority of climbers decide what another climber does when his activity is not effecting other,,, ?

In reply to sihills:

If that is true then I think it is more stupid than brave, as I have stated. Not knowing what you are about to come up against or how stable a route is and then being prepared to accept death is stupid. I can see no bravery in it at all!

In reply to chickenpox: who mentioned it was brave?? i have never soled to show of, or to be brave, I have soled because I have been in the zone, I have had 100% trust and faith in myself to not fall of and because in my opinion it is one of the purest forms of climbing and it is a great experience topping out on something right at your limit without any ropes.

In reply to sihills: You can't have 100% confidence in something you have never climbed before, it is impossible!!
Forget all the romance of topping out without ropes n so on. Look at it realistically and you are taking a chance, if you are at your limit without knowing what you are going to come up against, in some respects you've been lucky!

Knowing a route and what you have to take on is very different from onsighting. One uses knowledge and the other luck!

In reply to chickenpox: your taking a chance when you leave your house everymorning and get behind the wheel of a car, your taking a chance everytime you cross the road! everything involves risk and there is always a chance something could go wrong! I know a fair few people who have been serious injured or died out in the mountains or climbing, and I know that im lucky that on some occasions I have got away with it but I have never felt lucky after topping out while soloing, If i didnt have 100% confidence in my own ability to get up the route then I would never attempt it solo. Have you ever soloed anything onsight???

In reply to sihills: When I leave the house and get in my car I am aware of what is about to happen, I am in control of what I am doing.
Now if I put someone who had never driven on the road before control of my car then I would be lucky if they didn't crash it or cause some kind of an accident.
We all know people who had had accidents or died, I have suffered a really bad accident myself which make it impossible for me to climb as well as I used to, we will never stop accidents happening it is part of life. What we can do is try to reduce the chances of accidents. Beginning a climb with no knowledge of what is up there and what you might come up against is not reducing risk and so luck comes into it. I still can't see how you can have 100% confidence climbing at your limit onsight, I still think that falls under Luck or Stupidity.
Yes I have soloed onsight on many occasions but within my grades. I'd have never jumped on a route knowing that it was at my limit without ropes, that would be stupid of me! Climbing at my limit leaves quite a big chance of a fall. If I didn't think I had a chance of falling then it wouldn't be climbing at my limits, would it?

If soloing was 100% secure then I think people wouldnt do it as much. I dont think you can compare to driving to work, rather the opposite I think in some cases people have such a safe life that they sometimes do this sort of thing. Taking a risk is sometimes shunned upon and people dont like to admit it. When you are soloing and every move counts, it does put you in a "zone". There is definitely something to soloing, but its risky, there is no way one can totally avoid that. Its just simply a high risk with a reward.

In reply to sihills:

Didn't you post this recently

onsight e6 6c, was alot to do with peer pressure, im far too old and sensible nowdays to solo anything even close to my limit.

Seems to back up up what ol' pox is saying

In reply to permanenttrauma: and which part does that backup? just because there was peer pressure involved does not mean that I wasnt 100% confident I would get up it! have soled quite a few e5/6 ish routes onsight and as i have said everytime I have been 100% confident in my ability, I know there is a risk, I accepted that risk! I see myself more likely to fall of if I was soloing something well below my limit that I have climbed plenty of times before as I do not need to concentrate as much, iam not as focused and im much more likely to make a stupid mistake. Understand that lots of people wont agree with me, but i also imagine there will be quite a few people who have solo onsighted at there limit and will understand what iam saying.

back to the op's question!

In reply to sihills: If this is the case then I don't think you are climbing at your limit. Being 100% confident that you will do it is not on the limit at all, if you want to climb at your limit then select something you are not 100% sure you will complete!

Anyway, thats my tupence!

In reply to chickenpox: we shall agree to disagree!

In reply to permanenttrauma:

Hardest stuff I've soloed, including the highest trad grade I've climbed (as close to my limit as I've climbed, 'pox is just wrong), I've been alone. No peer pressure, nothing forcing me to do it except me. It's enjoyable, there's risk and that's part of what's enjoyable.

Each to their own I say.

In reply to sihills:

you can't have been that close to your limit or you'd have taken a tumble (you cannot beat the house!!). maybe you are a better climber than you think.

In reply to Bret (rock god):

Or just really good at knowing his limit...if you tumble, you've obviously passed it

In reply to The brainn: Master's Edge was soloed today according to the logbooks.

In reply to thomasadixon:

I wasn't trying to say it isn't possible to solo to your climbing limit, just that the other guy was contradicting himself. From his previous post he seems to imply he gave into external pressure rather than make a pure climbing decision. He says he is now older and sensible and wouldn't make the same decision again. Presumably because he has the experience now. This backs up pox who was saying you wouldn't purposely climb on your absoloute limit.

Also personal limits mean different things to different people. I would never lead a climb let alone solo on my limit as I consider my limit to be where I am coming off the rock. However if I do find myself in that situation the rope will save me. So I can see where pox is coming from.

In reply to thomasadixon: We obviously have a different idea of what climbing at the limits of our capability are.
Like you say, each to their own!
agree to disagree n so on!

In reply to Duncan_S:

You have to be in fear of a tumble to be on the limit otherwise you are within your limits!

This could turn a bit crazy, think I'll get out before we get on the roundabout!!

In reply to chickenpox:

I know a lot of people who solo and a few who have soloed onsight at their limit - and I would say that they all do it with 100% confidence. 100% confidence in their judgement and their ability. Thus they may well not top out on a route, but they are 100% confident that they will be able to reverse it or get off the route successfully if they judge the climbing to be too hard, unpredictable or the situation in general becomes 'out of their control'.

To look at it another way, I am not sure ANY of them would ever play Russian Roulette even though the odds are 80% in favour of 'success'.

In reply to Shani:

Plenty on X factor/Britains got talent type auditions have 100% confidence. Investors who had 100% confidence in RBS shares. The list goes on.

In reply to Simon Lee:


I don't watch them so will have to take your word for it!

I couldn't imagine starting out on a solo thinking 'I might not make this'. Sure I can 'edgy' and am aware of the dangers but always step off the ground confident my exit from the route will not involve a fall. Life is too short to gamble on a faithless excursion.

How is the training going? Are you 100% confident in ticking The Oak? You must be close.

In reply to chickenpox:

Whether you can climb at your limit and still have 100% confidence that you won't fall really depends on how good you think your judgement is and how fine a line you believe you can draw between a route you will fall off and a route you won't



Soloing as a father could be viewed as selfish. Likewise, not letting your father solo when it clearly means a lot to him could also be viewed as selfish.


In my experience, the hit of adrenaline you get when you think you're going to die but then don't can't be beaten.



JT

In reply to The_JT:


Totally agree. Heroin for the soul.

To be taken in very occasional doses and, preferably, not at all.

Mick

In reply to Shani:


Then it's a game you haven't played - and please don't.

Even if you aim to solo well within your ability, sooner or later, you'll hit the loose crucial hold, the missing crucial hold, seepage at the crux, condensation on the holds (sea cliffs), salt-encrusted holds (ditto) or... combinations of some of these and others. The trap will snap shut behind you. Best to reflect beforehand:


'Climb if you will but remember
that strength and courage are naught without prudence
and the negligance of a moment
may destroy the happiness of a lifetime...'

Mick

In reply to The_JT: without a doubt, but this isn't the issue. I can see if you know the route and know you are pushing it then fine, but how many times do we climb at our limit roped up and then hit something we just can't figure out and have to rest or come down? Infact when we are pushing it it is not that often we onsight anything, a few goes or rests and then down again to retry it etc
This is my point.
If you are pushing it at E6, to me this means you will fail on some routes. If you are completing all E6s you attempt then you are not pushing it to your limit, you need to step up some.

Now to onsight solo this E6 knowing that you have been failing on some then you are in effect thinking that this route is worth your life or being wheelchaired, to me that is stupidity more than anything else, and if this is how your head works then probably a bit of a liability.

Absolutely solo knowing you complete these grades, no biggy, but at your limit is another thing altogether.
anyway I said I wouldn't get involved in this again!

In reply to Mick Ward:

I didn't say that I haven't 'lost it' on a route. One time in particular I had a bit of an epic - but prior to starting the route, if I had had any notion of the situation I was going to end up in, I wouldn't have begun the climb.



I probably know this more than most.

-----------------------
My mate Dave summed soloing up best for me when he called it 'an expression of self awareness'. It is a personal choice and carries risks and rewards - as do most things in life.

In reply to Shani:
>...but prior to starting the route, if I had had any notion of the situation I was going to end up in, I wouldn't have begun the climb.

Which is utterly different from starting a solo knowing you may not finish it... or, even worse, because you may not finish it.

In my experience, there's a lot of cant about soloing and commitment, primarily spouted by folk who 'haven't been there'. (Am not inferring anything about you; I don't know you.) But the reality about soloing is that there can be some extraordinarily deep emotions involved and that some of what goes on may (with good reason) be unpalatable for many.

Given the sensitivity of recent events and knowing there may be impressionable people reading this, I think I'll exit the discussion. The best advice I could give anyone about soloing is - don't.

Mick

In reply to The brainn:

There's a place called caswell far east which is a bouldering area here on the gower. Some of it is straightforward but it's all highball 15 feet or so. I've been down there often cruising around before Anyway, I was with a mate the other day and he snapped a hold, a foot, a heel and a wrist - all with 10 minutes before the tide hit the face. If he was having a zen experience on his own - as I have often done - he would be dead.

I've done a fair amount of proper soloing and highball bouldering in out of the way places. Its a wonderfull thing but it really is dangerous. Best done when the head needs a good clearing.

What I've never understood is why people seem to think soloing is a completely different animal to trad climbing. I've heard people dismiss soloing as unjustifiable almost in the same breath as raving about how bad the gear was on a recent lead they weren't sure they could get up.

Soloing is trad climbing on extremely poor gear, but without the psychological crutch (or delusion?) of having gear that may or may not slow you down. Yes, if you fell off most moves of most trad routes you would be unlucky to get more than a bruise, but surprisingly often you'll find yourself facing a potential groundfall, albeit on relatively easy ground and usually not for many moves. This is soloing in the guise of tradding. There is no difference.

If you think this is irresponsible go sport climbing, or stick to well-protected trad routes, but please don't pretend that virtual-soloing with a rope and crap gear is any more responsible or justified than soloing with no rope at all. We do both because we enjoy it, it's just that having a rope and a harness on allows us to convince others and ourselves that what we are doing is as safe or dangerous as we choose to make it. It's true that it is as safe or dangerous as we choose to make it, but it has nothing to do with the rope and everything to do with the decisions we make and the care we exercise on each and every move of each and every route. We often make dangerous and committing moves on lead when we think there's good gear above. We make dangerous and committing moves while soloing when we think the climbing gets easier above. In both cases we could be wrong and could end up in a pickle if we've misjudged it. It's up to us not to misjudge it. This critical reliance on our own judgement is a very important factor in what I - and I'm sure many others - enjoy about our climbing game.

By the way, loose rocks don't pull themselves off, and I for one have never pulled a hold off I didn't think was suspect. Using suspect holds while soloing is either because you've assessed the likelihood of them coming off as negligible, or because you've been complacent and failed to pay enough attention to what you're doing. Such complacency is normal and reasonable while you have gear in, so people pull holds off 'unexpectedly' quite often, but if you don't have gear in (or rope on) you really wouldn't or shouldn't be pulling on the suspect holds, no matter how many times you've done the route before using exactly the same suspect holds.

To all: If we go back to the original thread I'd like to see discussed is climbing solo ground up the Pinnacle of climbing. Free/solo climbing with no ropes and no prior knowledge of route, just what can be seen from the ground must be the purest way of climbing.
We all know this is virtually impossible but to me it's without doubt the purest form of climbing.

If this was the only way to climb climbing would have been banned a long time ago.
At least the moutains would still be in a natrual flux.

In reply to john arran:

The moment I tie on it feels different from soloing and the moment I place gear it is different. Whilst I appreciate that gear can make you feel safer than you really are and that the singleminded focus of soloing reduces risk, nevertheless to mind they are two different types of climbing with respect to character and consequence.

In reply to The brainn:

You may want to see it discussed but its a load of rheorical tripe - pure/pinnacle - is that with or without sticky rubber and chalk ?

In reply to Simon Lee:

Different with respect to character, certainly. But with respect to consequence they're only different during those moments you have gear in which will stop you decking. I'd argue that marginal gear can actally make climbing more risky and therefore less reponsible, as it adds another unknowable into the equation, possibly tempting you to go for a move you wouldn't go for while soloing, without any real justification for accepting this extra risk.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Couldn't agree more!

In reply to john arran:

Definitely! I can think of a few routes where you have to climb several meters before you get your first bit of gear in. (such as Archangel on Stanage). I can think of a few more where some of the placements are pretty marginal. In fact something like Calvary on Stanage has pretty marginal gear in the upper section.

Certainly with Archangel you'd be better off soloing the route and with Calvary, the energy placed to get little wires in the upper section may well be best placed speeding you to the top.

In reply to chickenpox:


I thought you'd agreed each to their own! Why do you keep insulting people/telling people what to do? I really don't understand why you think people shouldn't take risks, even big ones...we don't all have (or want) to live like you.

John Arran - great post.

In reply to thomasadixon: Are you drunk? How on earth have I insulted anyone? We agreed to disagree and nothing more has been said.
I've given my opinion on it, I haven't said anything insulting to anyone or asked them to share my opinion, do you need a hug or something, you are imagining things!!!

In reply to chickenpox:

"to me that is stupidity more than anything else, and if this is how your head works then probably a bit of a liability"

That's an insult.

In reply to thomasadixon:

No it isn't, it isn't directed at anyone, it is a comment based on my opinions of people who would think and do a certain thing.
Sorry if you were traumatised by my opinions, I shall try to sugar coat everything in future for your delicate little senses!!

In reply to Shani: Certainly with Archangel you'd be better off soloing the route and with Calvary, the energy placed to get little wires in the upper section may well be best placed speeding you to the top.


Why would you be better off ? The gear on both routes is placed at rests so no extra energy is expended and with Archangel is bomber and Calvary proven to have the potential to hold falls.

In reply to john arran: I'd argue that marginal gear can actally make climbing more risky and therefore less reponsible, as it adds another unknowable into the equation, possibly tempting you to go for a move you wouldn't go for while soloing, without any real justification for accepting this extra risk.


Yes. Pschological gear is just that, however, most trad routes aren't solely marginally protected - you are talking about a very limited number of routes. I accept your point that with this limited number of routes (none of which spring to mind) you might just as well be soloing and should treat them the same way.

In reply to The brainn:

Does no-one go to a crag in the hope of being able to team up with someone, and climb roped, only to find that there is no such chance.Having reached that point, I then choose routes to solo.

In that circumstance, I do not always solo in a purist way.Instead I take a full rack and if feel that I may be pushing my luck, I place gear which I connect to my harness via slings, then remove the gear as I move up, sometimes with another placement higher up (via another sling).This obviously has limitations, but is not soloing for the ego, but just so that I can climb something, rather than enviously watch others at the crag.

Rob

In reply to veteye: That is more or less aiding a route

In reply to chickenpox:

No it's not - aiding would stepping on slings or pulling on gear. If placing gear to protect a move is "aiding" then are you claiming all trad climbers aid climbs?

In reply to The brainn: Obviously soloing can insanely dangarous, and I can see your point about not soloing if you have kids, but how different is it to rideing fast motorbikes? That could just as easily kill you. Or what about smoking. That will almost definately kill you in the end. In my opinion soloing is a big risk, but so are a lot of other things in life it is just these other things have become acceptable.

In reply to sihills:

thinking about this i guess i have done exactly the same in the past. when i was a vs leader i solo'd TPS & 3PS as my first e1 (at the time, hvs now) even though they had gear. however i'd argue that this type of solo is less of a solo at your limit than say if i'd solo'd the right conq.

for what it's worth i agree with john. soloing isn't that different a beast. if you are climbing e1 or above you will be doing some hardish moves in dangerous situations. even on vdiffs you can be soloing (i.e. sabre tooth terrier or whatever it is at chair ladder).

In reply to Simon Lee:

The point wasn't so much that you're better off soloing some routes rather than leading. Rather that while leading you're occassionally in groundfall situations. If you accept that it's ok to be in a possible groundfall situation with a rope on I find it hard to see how you could justify taking a fundamentalist view against soloing.

In reply to Simon Lee:

My point about Archangel was about energy conservation, simply that from where you can get gear in, you have soloed several meters above ground that offers a potentially very awkward landing.

I am not sure what you mean by 'proven to have the potential to hold falls'. Assuming we are talking about the same placement, do you mean it HAS held a fall- if so from what height on the route and for how heavy a climber etc... With Calvary, the last bits of gear my mate put in (opposing wires IIRC), took him a while to place and neither he nor I reckoned they would hold much of a fall.

In reply to Shani:

The actual odds of surviving in russian roulette is much higher than 80% as the weight of the bullet means it will usually land at the bottom. This is of course as long as the gun is well maintained.

In reply to Shani: <My mate Dave summed soloing up best for me when he called it 'an expression of self awareness'. It is a personal choice and carries risks and rewards - as do most things in life >

Tell Dave I agree with him

In reply to Shani: I fell off the last moves of Calvary onto a 1/2 size home made titanium friend in the break (this was way before WC made anything less than a size 1) It stopped me as I suspected it would, but IIRC there is a bomber upside down Friend 1 lower down which would stop you decking. I would not have contemplated soloing Calvary.

In reply to Pedro50:

Somebody died a few years ago in a (roped) fall from the top.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
I know, but they didn't deck did they? I think he just fell awkwardy and smacked the rock.

In reply to ajsteele:

You've been reading too many Jack Reacher novels!

In reply to chickenpox:


You aren't comparing like with like here, are you?

You often drive on roads which you have got no previous knowledge of.

That is just like soloing a route that you have no previous knowledge of.

When driving, a dog could run out in front of your car, or you could have a blow out, or a tree could fall on the car. The unexpected might happen and you might be seriously injured or die. In fact, you know that this regularly happens to experienced and careful drivers.

And yet you take the risk anyway. You would even drive with a child as a passenger, knowing that there is a risk of an accident - after all the statistics show many children involved in car accidents every year.

Everything that you do in life involves risk - walking up the stairs in your house is soloing, albeit at a very low grade!

Lumping all soloing together doesn't make sense - after all, have you ever soloed a moderate as a descent route? Most climbers will have done at some point.

Soloing a short, solid grit route at a low grade, well within your capabilities is a completely different thing from soloing on loose rock at the limits of your capabilities in the Himalya!

People solo for different reasons - because it is quick, convienient, thrilling, full of freedom, daring, to impress other people, to impress themselves - why assume that you know their reasons?

Your arguements against soloing also apply to climbing itself. A none climber could make exactly the same arguements against climbing and say that you are foolhardy to indulge in climbing - why do it at all? To proove you are brave and a hero? (no - that isn't the reason is it? but try explaining your reasons - it can be impossible if the other person simply doesn't feel the same way about the activity).

In reply to The brainn:


It's not impossible at all - it just depends on what grade the route is! People onsight solo all the time, but well within their capabilities.

In reply to veteye:

Isn't this creating the potential for constant factor 2 falls on static slings? Why don't you just do the standard thing and take a rope and self belay on the rope if you want to protect yourself? (just curious)

In reply to tlm: Too right! Anyone reading some of the stuff on this thread would get the idea that ALL soloing is done by foolhardy death-seeking kamikaze types at night-time on routes at or beyond the ultimate limit of their ability upon loose ice-glazed rocks, whilst simultaneously being pecked at by voracious nesting birds and distracted by beeps from their i-Pods Soloing is an essential part of the climbing experience.

In reply to tlm: Come to think of it, I recently remember reading about an elderly gentleman (very sane sensible type) who soloed nearly 50 climbs at Stanage. Hats off to the old chap!

In reply to Pedro50:

Think I'll be calling you for beta on the placement!

My point was in support of John Arrans; that soloing is not neccessarily "a completely different animal to trad climbing". I was trying to think of examples that are run out.

Archangel is run out at the start. The landing involves a boulder that is about foot out from the base of the crags with a heavily eroded gap filled with loose material. Falling in to this from any great height would be awkward and could be serious. The first gear is at about 20ft and the crux at about 15ft (after which the route eases of massively). So effectively, how does leading this route differ that much from a solo in terms of mindset?

Calvary seemed run out to me - but maybe it was a bad example. What about something like Elergy at the Roaches? That headwall is a big mind game and I don't see much difference between the commitment required to head up that section than how you approach a solo.

It would be interesting to hear JD reflect on how his lead of Indian Face compared mentally with his onsight-solo of Ulysees.

In reply to Marc C:

Soem folks seem to forget that soloists want to live! They confuse suicide with soloing.

In reply to john arran:

I don't take a fundamentalist anti-soloing view but I do see it as majorally different as opposed to marginally different from trad roped climbing, even bold trad climbing. Yes intermittantly when trad climbing you might be in a groundfall situation whereas you are continuously in a groundfall situation when soloing. In thise situations when roped the options to back off are usually more plentiful and safer whilst downclimbing whilst soloing for example might be more dangerous than pressing on.

In short the level of commitment from the outset, I think makes roped climbing fundamentally diffrent to soloing which isn't the same thing to being fundamentally opposed to it. I do it from time to time but I wouldnt encourage others to and I am up for pointing out any less than hard-headed notions about it from others.

With respect to you - your soloing feats are stunning - have you asked yourself whether your passion for soloing has led to some self-kidology on your part that serves to justify you continuing to do it ?

In reply to Simon Lee:

I don't think the difference is between soloing and leading - they overlap in levels of danger, boldness, risk taking etc.

After all, we would all agree that soloing a solid single pitch mod at Stanage is probably a lot less risky than leading a gearless, loose horrorshow of a route at Gogarth!

You need to be clear about the difference between soloing dodgy ground at one's limit and soloing solid ground well below one's limit.

In reply to tlm:

I have to agree. Danger, boldness and risk taking are clearly not the exclusive domain of the soloist. Nor is safety guaranteed with a rack and rope. Fear and death stalk both disciplines.

In reply to tlm:

The factors to throw in the mix are volume, chance, objective dangers and physical/technical difficulty.

You can slide the scale up and down to have theoretical analagous equivalence of risk between soloing one route and leading another.

The diffrence in character with soloing is that you always have all the proverbial eggs in one basket. There is no back-up however marginal - each move is a critical one. Its a simple and obvious difference that somehow seems to get sidestepped, overlooked, ignored with sophisticated banter.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Nonsense!

I would agree that soling always carries risks, as does any other activity in life, even making a cup of tea.

1. If you are soloing something where you have three excellent points of contact at ALL times, then if a hand slips or a hold breaks (which as pointed out above is something that the climber actually has to cause) you will not fall!

2. If you fall from a solo, the injuries that you suffer will not always be fatal - bouldering is soloing with acceptable falls! Scrambling is soloing with acceptable levels of risk! Walking is soloing!!! You pick your own level of risk!

3. Roped climbing ALWAYS carries risks, including risk of death. You are ignoring these risks. It is always possible to fall unexpectedly and awkwardly and to simply be unlucky in which part of yourself strikes the rock. It is possible to break your back on a roped diff.

In reply to tlm:

That is exactly the kind of skirting around the issue I was referring to. A nasty moment might help you get it. Arguing the toss here won't.

In reply to Simon Lee:

When Dawes LEAD Indian Face I would imagine that there WAS a point beyond which he had all his 'proverbial eggs in one basket', where there was 'no back-up however marginal', and every move was 'a critical one'.

In reply to Simon Lee:

I do get it.

Soloing is dangerous.

Climbing is dangerous.

Life is dangerous.

Which part do you disagree with?

In reply to Shani:

Yes. I'm sure there was - but presumably not continuously so throughout the route. IF gets led 3 times in 20 years. People are out soloing every day. One is an irregular occurence that attracts a lot of attention the other isnt.

In reply to Simon Lee:
Don't see it as skirting around the issue at all. Every climb even roped ones are a judgement call. Is there any discernible difference in soloing Sunset slab and hauling a rope up it? No other than that the weight of the rope will make it harder and you may have an illusion of safety.

In reply to blindedbyscience:

The only point in doing that would be to belay your second up it. No one leads Sunset Slab.

In reply to tlm:

The part where you say you get it.

In reply to tlm:
Sorry but you really shouldn't solo stuff if you think having three points of contact will save you, that breaking holds are caused by careless hands (which no doubt they are but how do you know exactly how much force can be applied?), and that falling from solos can be acceptable. The whole point is that you shouldn't fall, end of. That's the soloing equivalent of believing that a tied of bit of grass will hold a big lead fall - you're making it vastly more dangerous for yourself if you convince yourself that it could be ok to fall from a solo, and you can catch yourself with one hand on a crimp if your feet pop/hold breaks. And don't compare soloing to making a cup of tea, thats just a bit silly really.
At the same time I very much agree with your point about the dangers of death with roped climbing that climbers seem to ignore. A lot of roped climbers genuinely seem to think that their activity can be made totally safe. I quote a previous thread on the danger of climbing - fatal accident frequency rates (deaths per 10^8 hours) -cars: 57, motorbikes: 660, rock climbing(vague as that is): 4000. Keep that in mind.

In reply to Simon Lee:

You are comparing apples with pears here. IF was used to illustrate the point that lead climbing can be dangerous. As dangerous as soloing.

You are probably right that 'people are out soloing every day'. But I would say that there are 'people out leading trad every day' and of these, many will lead a route that is run out (or with marginal placements), that will put them in as much a risk as soloing (and probably generate similar levels of fear/anxiety), and thus demand similar focus, judgement and application.

In reply to Tdubs:

Bless! When I solo stuff (very infrequently) it is well below my ability and I don't fall! I don't think the stuff I solo would be seen as particularly dangerous by anyone!

I was merely pointing out the fact that soloing doesn't guarantee death, even if the unexpected does happen!

..and illustrating that total risk avoidance in life is simply not possible.

Still - you are free to read my message in whichever way suits you best.

In reply to Tdubs:
In days of yore when men were bold etc... there was no real difference between climbing with a rope or soloing (other than as a means to bring the second up). At that time climbers would see it as essential to practice falling off. They would climb up say 10ft and jump, a practice not without risk of injury, but essential if you wanted to get away without serious injury by being caught out unawares.
I recently completed 50 climbs in a day at Stanage and all but two were solos as it was the only viable way to do it.

In reply to Hanzler666:

Hmmm, I sort of agree but not entirely. You are aiding your efforts, it is there if you need it to rest on stand on or whatever. It is how solo aid routes are taken on, not always used but is there in the chance it is needed.

In reply to chickenpox:

Chickie - in aided climbing you weight the gear, in free climbing you don't.

It isn't complicated. If you don't weight the gear, it isn't aided.

In reply to tlm: You are not making any sense what so ever. I have not once argued against soling, infact quite the oposite. And no I didn't try to compare driving with soling, the poster above me did and I was trying to show that you can't compare it.
You have not read my posting right at all and so have written is rubbish if directed towards me. I haven't told anyone why they do it, I have given my opinion of someone who thinks climbing is worth betting on luck for your life.
My opinions on this have only really been that if you are completing everything at a certain grade and 100% confident that you are capable of doing anything at that grade then you are not at your limit.

So get it right before you empty your nappy in my direction!

In reply to tlm: I've seen many sections of aid routes climbed without aiding the gear all the time. Don't patronise me, the point is it isn't soloing, maybe it isn't aiding either, but the gear being there to rest if you need it would surely be claimed as some form of aid, mentally or physically.

In reply to chickenpox:

If you look at what I have quoted above what I wrote, I was replying to sihills, sweetie.

In reply to chickenpox:

Aiding as a word in climbing (as opposed to the way that it is used by the general population) is used in quite a specific way.

When you climb a route with gear without weighting the gear, it is called freeclimbing, not aiding.

Of course when aiding you don't continuously weight the gear. You just have to weight it at some point, otherwise you aren't aiding.

In reply to tlm:

Well thats sort of my point, if it is there to be weighted then it can be associated with aiding in some respect. Same as trad climbing doesn't mean you have to fall on your gear for it to be trad, you HAVE to fall onto your rope for it not to be soloing do you.

And sorry for the above comments if you didn't aim them at me, I am sort of getting used to everyone wanting an arguement and I'm blind to tjhose that don't sometimes. Sorry!

In reply to chickenpox:


Nope - you DO have to weight it for it to be aiding.


>Same as trad climbing doesn't mean you have to fall on your gear for it to be trad, you HAVE to fall onto your rope for it not to be soloing do you.

Trad climbing has gear and yet if you don't weight the gear, then it is free climbing, not aid climbing.

You just have to climb on your own for it to be soloing - it doesn't matter if you actually have gear or not.

In the UK, we just use soloing to generally mean that you also aren't using gear.

You need this!

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=33



No sweat.

In reply to The brainn: I think if soloing is what you love, then you shouldn't stop it. Agree'd if you fell and died, it would be upsetting for loved ones but to die doing something you love is better than dying in a hospital bed and loved ones should understand that

In reply to tlm: Hmm, I'm not convinced. If you are climbing with gear that would normally be used to aid (slings, nuts etc) and without a rope then you are preparing to rest on the gear if need be and so using aid to help with the ascent. If you don't use it then great, but people don't always fall onto ropes, but aren't soloing the route. Maybe I'm not as clear as I want to be.
Whatever the style it does seem a rather time and energy consuming method of ascent, especially for the length of routes people are talking about soloing in the country.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:
I'm not talking boldness, and I'm not anti-soloing at all. I just thought it seemed a bit blase for someone write on the internet that if you have 3 points of contact you'll be ok and sometimes you might bounce. Also seemed unhealthily like self-delusion. At those golden times you refer to, I hear the adage was 'the leader never falls'. So it's the same thing.
And while on short grit outcrops there are definite benefits to knowing how to land, on the vast majority of other climbing, any difficulties are at an unacceptable height, if there is groundfall potential you shouldn't be thinking about the falling in my opinion, you should be climbing carefully and totally appreciating that a f*ckup=death. Sometimes I think some of the beauty of it is satisfaction of a job well done, knowing that you wouldnt be there to appreciate the completion of it if you hadnt done it, and done it calmly and well.
(If you can risk injury jumping from 10feet then I'm not sure how you survived your childhood. I had a very similar game at school, seeing how high you could jump from stuff before it really started to hurt)

In reply to tlm: Of course when aiding you don't continuously weight the gear.


Yes you do - of course

In reply to WILLMAWSON:


Cartwheeling painfully into a boulder field is not something I love.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

I agree. Will, you're talking absolute bollocks.

In reply to sihills:

bullshit. No you haven't.

In reply to Tdubs:
I appreciate that falling greatly increases your chance of death/injury as opposed to not falling. However injuries sustained falling depend very much on how you land and what you land on. I am often amazed that I survived my childhood when I consider some of the many daft stunts I performed!

But to get back on topic. It seems to me that in this era of sport climbing, decent ropes and a multitude of trad gear at our disposal, we have lost the art and the appeal of falling off. Perhaps the greatest exponent of the art was Alf Bridges who according to Ian McNaughton-Davis made "unbelievable controlled falls without injury" and according to Colin Wells became so good at it that he could drop 25ft or more in control (and presumably without injury as he did it so often). Hamish Nicol racked up 30 falls totalling 4000ft with only a fractured skull and a broken jaw to show for it. Lord Hunt was once known as the "tumbling Knight". Colin Kirkus writes in "Let's go climbing" "I fell 70 ft. The first thing I hit was 50 ft below. I can still remember every detail. The rock rushed up and flung me out into the air again. The rope tightened and jerked me head uppermost, then ran out again and I continued on my downward way. I landed on scree at the bottom with my hips wedged in Hopkinson's crack.....The only injury was a broken toe". Admittedly not a solo but still a hell of a way to fall.
There is nothing blase about falling off but it is not automatically a case of death or injury. If anything we don't take it seriously enough to think on what to do if it happens. I refer the reader to "Drop, plop or die" the art of falling off by Ian McNaughton-Davis in "Games Climbers play" by Ken Wilson

In reply to Simon Lee:

Are you suggesting that an aid route involves every move being aided and gear weighted?

In reply to chickenpox:

If it doesn't then its not a pure aid route.

In reply to chickenpox:

Ah, UKC at its finest... (Done much aid?)

No, no, you're right. I have such fond memories of getting out of the etriers on Hangman, the void sucking at my heels, and racing 30 feet, encumbered by a vast parapernalia of redundant rubbish hanging off my waist, to collapse onto the next secure placement.

And getting out of the etriers on Kilnsey Main Overhang (eek!), to lock off and heel hook in the roof (the turoids gasped) while retrieving Boggie's sling, to the pleasant exhortation of "And don't f*cking leave any gear behind!"

I knew that both routes would be freed one day... but not by me.

(A5) Mick (not!)

In reply to Mick Ward:

... and on that old route that went the whole height of Malham. I seconded all of it and got in such a mess at one point, stepped into the etrier clipped to my harness... (well, when I say harness...)

In reply to Simon Lee:

So only if you weight every move on a route it is an aid route? ok!
Interesting thing to know, I wonder how many aid routes aren't actually climbed purely and as you describe? I'd imagine the majority of them.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Hello brick wall, how are you?

Mate, feel free to fall from whatever height you fancy. Only, with the weight of all that literature behind you, you may find yourself accelerating towards the unforgiving ground faster than you think.

Have you ever experienced a broken skull? Trust me, deeply unpleasant. And a broken jaw, much worse (months with wire eating from a tube, my friend will tell you that). It sounds to me if you quote "only" that you've not been there. But this is all beside the point - those are all low falls (highball height).

I appreciate that falling off is a skill - one learnt bouldering. It shouldn't really have any place in soloing though, once you've got above bouldering height.

The thing is though, I think this is dangerous talk. I won't put any soloing on my logbook and I haven't told my best mate/climbing partner/housemate about my soloing because as a 19 year old male I found myself realising just how impressionable young men are and luckily resisting it, and ego has no place in dangerous pursuits. I keep it to myself, hence the word solo. If you want that, play russian roulette. And I don't want a similar deadly competition.

"we have lost the art and the appeal of falling off."
Lets go to the top of your favourite grit outcrop, see if we can find a 70foot clean drop and you can demonstrate this. Seems a bit unfair on MRT, but I'll donate a fishslice to scoop you up with.
Personally, there is no appeal in falling off. Maybe you'll survive if you're very lucky "depend very much on how you land and what you land on" and you can write a book about it.

(PS as an avid reader I don't like it when people use books for their own purposes and ignore the real points of the authors. So I'm sorry if I sound abrasive, but I meet enough idiots dropping the names of authors and titles to prove their points)

In reply to jon:

Absolutely - we just weren't used to aid and got in the most perplexing messes! (I had my own little debacle on that very route, but enough embarrassment for now...)

The most outrageous aid debacle ever seemed the story of Sheena Moffat untying from the wrong rope and dropping from Gordale Main into the flooded beck. Very hard to believe - but Shagger (where's he these days?) swore it was true. Has to be on a par with Cliff Phillips's solo (I knew we'd get back to soloing!) lob off the Mot.

You shudder, sip your coffee, salute the sun and give thanks you're still alive.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward: I thought that was Shagger and Phil Webb, and reputedly they had an argument as to who should crawl to the farmhouse for help, in the end they decided it was the one with broken wrists as it would be harder for the one with broken legs, or maybe thats another story.

In reply to Mick Ward: Another aid story, Raven Tor Girdle (I think I am the only person to do RTG and Cream Team Special) and Rod Haslem is leading the last pitch, he decides to do some moves free, but realises that seconding I am going to be unable to get the gear out, so he he leans back and puts in a peg for me to use to retrieve gear, failing to tell me he has not used it.
So I happily get there, sit on it, and lean back in a position its never been used in, it comes out. I hurtle across the crag ripping out the gear as I go heading to crash into the bank at the far end. Eventually a peg holds and the gear comes rattling down the rope towards me as I swing a few feet from serious injury. The fastest the last pitch of RTG was ever stripped

In reply to Al Evans:
...or maybe thats another story.

Tis another story. They abbed off Hangman in the dark (like you do) and, when the first one got to the morass of tangled ropes whipping around in the wind, he cut them (like you do). Even more exciting for the second one...

Odd though. Boggie, Dot and Deak abbed off Hangman in the dark. Deak and I abbed off Hangman in the dark. It just didn't seem to occur to any of us that short winter days (and late starts) would involve...

Days of innocence. But why most of us are still alive is anyone's guess.

Mick

In reply to Tdubs: I suspect Mr Bourne was being deliberately tongue-in-cheek? Having soloed with him, I can report that he solos with the unconscious assurance and control of a squirrel leaping through the trees (NB no safety nets for squirrels!). However, I concur with your sentiment that 'falling off is not an art form' and should be avoided at all costs - when I solo the very last thing I'm trying to do is fall off gracefully, I much prefer hanging on as gracelessly and unaesthetically as needs be! That said, I get a little weary of people making soloing synonymous with death wishes or playing russian roulette - as TLM intimated earlier on the thread much soloing is just pleasant (NB pleasant!) padding up grit Vdiffs where the risk of incurring a fractured skull is minuscule (and if IS higher than that, then I would seriously question whether one should be out on the rocks at all). Also, assessing risk and keeping cool without the 'safety' of a rope are IMO important parts of psychological training for leading.

Marc 'hundreds of pleasant solos (& a handful of scary ones!) under his belt' C

In reply to Mick Ward:

You have either won the favour of the protecting rock spirits OR the vengeful rock daemons haven't finished with you yet!

In reply to Mick Ward:

You are right and if I remember correctly omitted to tell the other guy that he'd cut the ropes. Webby had this theory that one day all the bolts would be gone from Malham, that his drilled threads and hooks would rule the day. Wonder what he thinks now

In reply to Marc C:

What has the world come to, when climbers avoid risk, rather than seeking it out? sigh - we must all be getting old.

In reply to tlm:

ALL of us getting old?! I'll have you know I'm not 50 for ages...at least 5 days (whereupon I intend to repeat Duncan's list one-handed and in wellington boots)

In reply to Marc C:

The CD of his effort is out now, and available for only £40.99....

I'm not 50 for ages either... at least 5 years. heh heh!

In reply to Tdubs:
I'm doing fine mate thanks

So 70ft is a low fall then (Mr Kirkus)? or let's say 25ft to be fair after all it's only highball height! So soloing isn't soloing if it is called bouldering ah I understand now! I watched that Mr Huber bouldering out some alpine route the other week very good it was.

But I wasn't on about soloing I was merely pointing out that falling isn't necessarily fatal and as for my own exploits at my age it doesn't do my knees any good so I tend to avoid it. I tend to be a careful climber but I have known plenty who have taken quite impressive groundfalls (roped and unroped) in my presence and walked away from it.

If you don't want to record your solos just call them bouldering, easy.

Survival is a fine balance of skill and luck.

How was I missing the real point of the authors? I was highlighting an attitude of yesteryear to highlight my argument that falling isn't and all or nothing thing. I can't rewrite history.

But to get onto one of my niggles, as a result of my views are you now going to go out and try jumping off Flying Buttress? Of course not! So who exactly are these impressionable young men? In my experience people are more than capable of sorting out good advice from bad.

In reply to Marc C:
I was thinking of you when I penned my missive. I well remember that perfectly executed swallowtail back flip you performed landing gracefully on your back across the boulders below Wharncliffe. Your squeals of delight could be heard for miles and quite drowned out the ambulance. Puttrell would have been proud had he lived.

In reply to Marc C:
Just to clarify for Mr Tduds and all. In refering to the "art" of falling off I meant in the sense that there is a knack to it rather than that it was an artform. Unless you count parkour.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Good grief, what ever became of dear old Parkour? Now THERE was someone who transformed falling into an artform! Remember how he used to tumble from the top of The Sloth (bouncing off every ledge on the way down) land at the bottom, pull a red handkerchief from his Morris Dancer's costume - in mock appreciation of the audience - then do a series of flying somersaults until he reached the top of Valkyrie..then launch himself as a human cannonball propelling himself to the roof of Rockhall Cottage?

In reply to Marc C:
I heard he descended the Nose at Yosemite in under 3mins beating the previous record and barely spilling his pint in the process

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Wow, I bet they had fun trying to carry someone on a stretcher along the base of the cliffs at wharncliffe.....

In reply to Simon Lee: Hmm, after much debate over a couple of days with local friends we will have to agree to disagree or at least agree very very few pure aid ascents get done. Or just that we have different ideas on this topic.

Perhaps I am missing something but above a certain height

when soleing if you fall mostly you die

wWhen trad leading if you fall mostly you live

that's a no brainer to me

In reply to chickenpox:
Quite possibly that's why I said a pure aid route. The main point I was taking up with tlm was that when aiding you do continuously weight the gear - otherwise you wouldnt be aiding. Its a boring pedantic point.

In reply to Simon Lee:

I know, but it is quite interesting that 99% of aid routes probably aren't being done in pure fashion! I've never read about one or watched one on dvd done ground up weighting each move. That to me is quite interesting to know when people are talking about aid routes, if you are 100% correct, and I have no reason to doubt you on that!!
But yes it is pedantic, unless you have claimed an aid route only to find that you made a few moves without weighting gear!!

In reply to Anonymous:

This sin't the issue. When people claim to solo at their limit it becomes a bit smelly and unlikely. Nothing wrong with climbing within your abiltities at all, loads do it.
I am yet to know anyone or hear of anyone who climbs as hard roped up onsight as they do without ropes, solo. It is just bullshit to me, I can't believe it, it doesn't make sense at all!! Yet we have one on this thread apparently!!

In reply to chickenpox:

Would you go and do some bloody aid - rather than reading or watching DVDs.

Then we might (just might) begin to take your witterings seriously.

Mick

In reply to chickenpox:


Perhaps you mean the converse?? But anyway...


Check out:

FA of Western Front.
FA of Moon Madness.

Neither onsight, but at the utter physical limit of the perpetrators.



Time to grow up??

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

I think I'm taken seriously within the climbing convo's to be honest, what are you wittering about?
My point of an aid route not being completed without the use of aid is valid, as these are often called aid routes, are they not?

So why don't you try some other reason to claim I'm wittering. I may talk shite when on the bullshit threads but I want you to show me an area in my posting on climbing related topics I'm not experienced or at least have a relevent point, please point one out for me.
You can't, so please shut the f*ck up unless your point has any relevence, and this point sure doesn't!!

In reply to Mick Ward:

If someone is claiming to be on the limit onsight on a regular basis and I am saying no you aren't, I am wrong?

You need to get a grip and maybe start wisening up a tad yourself.
Your point is strange, I am claiming what is obviously a fact out, and you are telling me to grow up? hahahahaha, I shall say no more, you do your own damage. ))))))))))))))))))))))))

In reply to chickenpox:

Oh dear...

Goodbye.

Mick

In reply to chickenpox:

Eric Jones, all his hardest routes were on sight solos.

In reply to Al Evans:

And so we have 1, any more?

Not exactly something that people do in the masses is it?

In reply to chickenpox:
Who was it who soloed Meshuga recently?
Also Ron Fawcett included "Ulysses or Bust" E5 6b as the last of his 100 E solos in a day which while not at his highest lead grade must have been pretty close.
In addition many trad routes, Great Slab at Froggett being one are effectively solos having no gear to speak of.

In reply to chickenpox:


You are assuming that climbing psychology is rational, but for some people it's not.

I met someone recently in Pete's Eats who said that he used to regularly solo at his limits. He had quite a philosophy about it, which I didn't fully understand so I can't explain it very well, but fear didn't come into it and supreme focus, concentration and self-belief did.

Conversely I also think some people get just as scared whether they are at the top end of the rope or the bottom; and some people are as gripped at the idea of falling off leading as they are soloing.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Ulysees is a solo and Meshuga might as well be and graded accordingly. The E grade isnt a reliable indicator of the soloing difficulty ie if you can lead well protected E5 then soloing an unprotected or poorly protected E6/7 might represent climbing at your physical/technical limit.