UKC

Saw this video, Worried me a bit to be honest. Why do people insist on climbing such safe routes and placing gear so poorly as to that it falls out when they fall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PbibTZ7zbEs

In reply to stumbler555:
luck o' the draw, innit!?

In reply to stumbler555:

Good clip. But there is no need for that to happen. The gear that ripped is not hard to place, and most people get another good bit higher from a decent foothold. Funny, looked like an otherwise good lead of the route...

In reply to adstapleton:

No it bloody well isn't.

In reply to adstapleton:

You reckon?

For certain he better steer clear of routes where the gear is dodgy!



Chris

In reply to adstapleton:

Do you really think that your gear staying in or falling out is 'luck of the draw' on a super well protected crack climb? If so you might want to work on your gear placing skills!

In reply to stumbler555: You've got to learn somewhere. I'm sure the leader will think quite carefully about the quality of his gear next time, as well as hopefully doing something about his shit falling technique.

In reply to climbingpixie:

Yep

In reply to adstapleton:

Then you're wrong.

But then, from your profile


Maybe you'd be best keeping quiet on a subject you clearly know nothing about?

In reply to stumbler555:
What a muppet! Lucky to stay alive taking a fall like that without a helmet. Not saying you should always wear a helmet but it's a good idea if your gear placing technique is so poor... Frightening that someone can almost do a tough E2 with such inability to protect the crux. There's tonnes of good gear to be had there. I've taken a fall off that headwall and it was a big one as I ran it out with the last bit of gear somewhere around the little overlap but it was bomber and there was more gear in the crack below. Whereas he seems to have nothing else for miles below! Fine if the top piece doesn't rip...

In reply to adstapleton:
Going by your comment and your profile, it seems you have an idea in your head that trad is dangerous. There's always risk but it need not be dangerous. There are lots of perfectly safe trad routes. For an E2, Regent Street is very well protected. In fact it's better protected than a lot of much easier routes.

In reply to Misha:
In fact it's better protected than a lot of much easier routes.

That still seems to confuse a lot of people.

In reply to stumbler555:

I think he could learn much from this


http://tinyurl.com/b4axxv3

In reply to stumbler555:

Ouch.

My first thought is "why do more people not wear helmets?"

and the second was that maybe the popularity of climbing walls has meant that people's climbing ability it much higher that their gear placing skills.

In reply to Misha:

Having fallen off Regent Street myself (at the low block, nowhere near the crux) my biggest problem was removing the wire I'd fallen on, not worrying about anything ripping...

In reply to cuppatea:


Given that he both fell off and that what should have been bomber runners ripped, it seems that, in this case, both were not up to the job.

In reply to the thread:

One piece of gear ripped. While it's not 'the luck of the draw', it can happen and sometimes does.

It's all very internet forum to sit here concluding that the guy has no idea how to place gear and that that must be something to do with bouldering mats and the youth of today (OK it was climbing walls).

In reply to stumbler555:

is it possible that the guy thought the gear he placed was bommer??

personally I placed a several of pieces before going for the head wall (one of which i kicked out) given the chance of me falling off I even stopped mid crux to place and extra cam too.

seems to be some pretty harsh comments and assumptions about this guy based on one video

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Yeah but if you're going to space gear out like that you've got to make sure it's good! And it really isn't hard to protect that route. I wouldn't normally join the armchair brigade but this is exceptional really. To be fair it was a freezing day by the looks of it but wouldn't that make you even more focused on the gear?

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

We all climb for different reasons.
I fell over coming back from the pub tonight. Was I wrong to go out?

Agreed the gear coming out wasn't desirable, agreed there is more gear on the route than is probably necessary, does that mean one has to place it all or take the calculated risk and choose to skip some?

It was a big fall by most people's standards, he was OK, the belayer held the ropes, the gear did it's job (second bit anyway - so there was redundancy). A video was posted on the internet.

Personally, I am pleased it wasn't me. But secretly, I wish it was me. Pushing, falling, failing, being OK. Why not?
We all climb for differenet reasons. Thats why it's terrifyingly fun....

In reply to Misha:

The vid reminds me of the fall that Franco took, this guy was so lucky to get away with that !
Not done the route but as you say if it`s well protected lace it or learn to put proper runners in, it does happend and he might have just been unlucky, not seen his profile so dont know if he was outside his comfort zone or what !

In reply to Jon Stewart:

i thought the same,its only one piece of gear and it happens.
ive done the route but cant remember the gear quality or the climbing.

In reply to stumbler555: Blah blah blah.
It was cold and first route of the day and cruised it all the way to that point where i had a slip of the foot as i'm not too used to Grit, it comes second to the Slate. I had fun and carried on climbing E-routes the rest of the day.

Wonderful day all in all.

In reply to Nick Nitro:

Damn that internet, eh.


Glad to hear it!

In reply to Pagan:

At least i wrote something on my profile!

Anyway - My comment was intended purely to piss people like you off and it worked with uncanny predictability a couple of times.

But you must admit - there is sometimes a bit of (bad)luck in any given situation...

In reply to Nick Nitro:

Can't believe the the huge negative impact you have had on every ones lives here Nick Nitro. I think it's time you stop climbing and stand at the bottom of the crag and practice placing gear.

Don't climb, don't fall. That's my mantra and it should be everyone else's too.

In reply to The Green Giant:
To be honest, as you can see form the video the ropes just get in the way. Probably best to leave them at the bottom next time, out the way.

In reply to stumbler555:

That's my boy !!

In reply to Nick Nitro:

Trolololol@ThisWholeDebate.

Wtf are people on about. It makes me lol so hard.

I think that Ukc profiles should have an Ego'o'meter attached to rate the quality of BullSh1t coming from them. That'll fuel their FB Farmville fields.

In reply to stumbler555 and others: What stands out for me about the clip is not the fall, the poor falling technique nor the poor gear placement but the fact that it provides an excellent case study for discussing fundamental issues about the best use of double ropes, especially on grit.

The leader places two runners close together, the higher one of which holds the fall. He has them both clipped to same right-hand rope, maintaining a classic 'left' and 'right' arrangement.

However, there is a very worthwhile debate to be had about whether that was a good decision as it rather negates one of the main advantage of double rope technique on relatively short gritstone routes which is being able to split the impact force in a fall over two runners.

On grit, if placing two close together runners, I invariably clip one to each rope but I'd be very interested in what others would have done in a similar situation.

In reply to mr mills:
As Kevster said (and as the video shows), the gear DID ITS JOB. The route was "laced" enough to keep the climber safe when he fell.

In reply to Nick Nitro:
Glad to hear you carried on and had a good day, that's what it's all about after all. Oh and staying alive. As for gear placements, it's your life, not mine...

In reply to Blue Straggler:
If he hit his head it would have been a very different story.

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

Yep this is IMO the most sensible approach to (straightish) grit lines.

Another related approach I have seen quite often is where pairs alternate half ropes, placing gear high and ensuring the lead is always protected from above by a tight rope. I think this shows a bit too much preoccupation with security.

In reply to andic:

If the runners are exactly level (so not like this), there is a school of thought that says clip them both to one rope if you have doubts about either. One rope will stretch more than two, so more force absorption.

In reply to Misha:

True, but then you could say that about any fall by any climber without a helmet! :-/

I'm not sure what your argument (with me) is. All I said was that there was enough gear there for Nick not to have decked, in response to someone saying that he should have laced the route better - a comment which in turn had ignored the main criticism levelled at Nick, which was the QUALITY of his gear placements.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Yes - but only just. If the 2nd runner had been as 'good' as the top one (which presumably he thought was bomber as he was deffo going for it) the outcome would have been very different!



Chris

In reply to remus:

Falling technique looks fine to me.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

I agree! Honestly - people accuse ME of "looking for arguments where there are none" and really it's everyone else doing it

If he'd been on "Only Just" it would have been a "different story"

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=10730

In reply to stumbler555:
I bet he will not do that again. Looked like a confident strong climber, probably why he did not bother with a higher runner.. lucky not to have hit the ledges at the start of the top crack...so he avoided smashing his ankles etc. Maybe would have done so if his top runner had held.

If he was finding it sketchy he would have laced that top crack.

In reply to jonny2vests:

That sounds reasonable; something that is probably handy to know but may never be used perhaps? I wouldn't go looking for/contriving such placements, if the pro is that poor that I have to mess about equalising it I would probably rather climb through or not be on the route at all!

In reply to stumbler555:

Threads like this always make me laugh. It doesn't worry you at all, you're just looking for something to spray about.

In reply to Chris Craggs: My usual motto is "If in doubt? run it out."

In reply to Nick Nitro:
Maybe you should have a back-up motto: "Get a decent wire, before you take a flier."

In reply to David Riley: You mean the way he slid down the wall, caught his foot on the rope and flipped upside down? Didn't look very pleasant to me.

In reply to remus:

Neither me! responders seem to be split between; 'what's the fuss, his gear held. It's an adventure!' and 'oh lucky man, put more gear in'. I am definately in the second camp, but know many would disagree. But considering how close he was, upside down & helmet-less, to the deck, I'd suggest he was close to something very nasty, and a long period of nothing like adventure. If you disagree strongly, have a chat with a paraplygic!

In reply to deepsoup:

"Don't descend, bung in a Friend"?

In reply to Niall:

"Whack in a nut, 'fore you land on your butt"?

(bored at work)

In reply to Niall:

Drill in a bolt, these deck-outs must halt.

(The coat's on)

In reply to El3ctroFuzz:

+1

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Install via ferrata, no deck-outs ever after

In reply to Quiddity:

But wear a lanyard, unless you're well 'ard

In reply to Quiddity:

Put up a top rope
It's truly your best 'ope

In reply to Blue Straggler:


Top rope it on a shunt........
Don't be a foolish boy

In reply to Hat Dude: RP or R.I.P

In reply to remus:

I don't think you're right.
Maybe he would have been better a bit further out. But he stayed calm and apparently made the choice, slowed himself as much as possible, and was looking for what he might hit.
He kept his feet away from the wall and stayed active.
The inversion didn't matter. It was probably unavoidable. Absorbed some shock loading. In any case he was still ready to fend off obstructions.
If that's "shit" then you need to think up a few grades below that.

In reply to andic:

I guess it depends what your in to. Not really that rare, anything with horizontal breaks and less than optimal gear is relevant.

In reply to stumbler555:

I took a similar length fall (well, a little bit shorter) from the same place as the guy in the video and it was very pleasant, though I managed to stay upright and enjoy a nice soft landing thanks to skinny rope

I knew I was going to find the top section hard so my strategy was to place high wires (I think I actually placed two wires and two cams) from the ledge, rest, then go for it.

I went for it, blew it and the top cam came out, but it was backed up by the rest of the gear and it was a small wire about 10cm lower down which held me - this is surely why we place back up gear in such situations?

I don't see much of a problem with what this guy did, though I guess I wouldn't want it to happen that way myself. As Remus says, the worst part is the way to gets tangled in the ropes and inverts, but that's just a lesson I'm sure he'll learn from this.

Still, let's continue the tutting, ranting and mud slinging; this is surely what the internet is for.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
LOL! Quality!

In reply to jonny2vests:

I'm not immediately convinced by this logic. However, I'll need give it some more thought before I can really comment.

In reply to Nick Nitro:

Speaking as one who failed at the first block, I am immensely reassured by your description of coming back down to the ground before your final fling as "cruising it".

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

Looking forward to it
Another, (perhaps more correct?) way of thinking about it is: there's a lower impact force with only one rope, there's no arguing with that I think.

The real question is: Is it significant?

You are probably better qualified than I to answer that.

In reply to jonny2vests:

are we still talking about stumpy little grit highballs?

In reply to andic:

Did you pad it out or just use the beer towel? Good effort either way.

In reply to jonny2vests:

Its a good video IMHO to show how far you can fall on a well protected route and how easy it is to get flipped upside-down; when overall the approach was OK (so what if it wasn't perfect...does anyone lead perfectly at their limit?). Of course stumpy routes mean the ground is closer on average when you fall

"If in doubt? run it out"

That attitude won't last you to old age unless you can place decent runners before the run out.

And wear a lid. Bloody yoof, got no common sense.

In reply to Owen W-G:

Or avoid the risk by not climbing... personal approaches to dealing with risk are just that.

In reply to Offwidth:
Or avoid the risk by not climbing... personal approaches to dealing with risk are just that.

Well said, sometimes things don't go exactly to plan, but his tactics were enough to stop him from hurting himself (although I'm sure inverting still came as a bit of a shock).
Wearing helmets, soloing, lacing routes or running them out are all personal choices and these are aspects that make climbing so inviting.

In reply to jonny2vests: I had to have a long think about this one. There are two issues:

1 - the extent of the load sharing (or equalisation) between two runners when clipped to one rope.
2 - energy dissipation in the event of gear failure.

I have included some indicative numbers to help keep track of things. They were calculated assuming a linear modulus and ignoring friction at the anchor but they are probably broadly representative.

Let us assume a fall on one rope will give an anchor force of 6.4kN. That implies a fall on two ropes would generate around 8.2kN (2x4.1kN).

If there is perfect 50/50 load sharing between two runners clipped to the single rope, then exactly as you say, clipping one rope will give lower peak forces on the runners. In this case it would be 3.2kN on each runner compared to 4.1kN.

However, you would only need to have a 36/64 split of loading (2.3kN/4.1kN) and you are then be no better off in terms of the peak force than if using both ropes. If for any reason the load sharing is any more uneven you would effectively lose the slight advantage. In the worse case you could potentially have no load sharing in which case one piece could be loaded at the full 6.4kN.

Using both ropes would pretty much guarantee a peak load of 4.1kN. In comparison, using one rope could potentially reduce this to 3.2kN, but equally it could increase it to 6.4kN. Given the large amount of evidence about how tricky it is in general to perfectly equalise anchors I am skeptical how reliably load sharing will occur in real world scenarios. As such, I am not sure the potential benefits warrant the downside risk.

Suppose we now assume that one runner fails at 2kN. In the single rope case there is no chance for the rope to relax and dissipate energy therefore the second runner could still be loaded at close to 6.4kN.

However in the two rope case when the anchor fails, some energy has already been absorbed so less needs to be dissipated by the second rope, reducing the anchor force to something like 5.5kN.

This I feel is a stronger argument against the one rope option.

Obviously, if gear is poor and you don't really trust it, the best option is to place more than two pieces. In which case both methods may be deployed.

In reply to stumbler555: Blimey! Do some of you guys carry calculators when you are climbing?

In reply to stumbler555: Right well done all, you got trolled. excellent.

The armchair warrior ass stapleton wins the fool of the forum award for giving opinions about things he obviously doesn't understand.

Thanks to all those who restore my faith in climbers by saying this shit happens, because it does.

Nick is an outstanding climber, and has climbed bold routes up to E4 without blinking an eye, and also happens to be one of the best highliners in the UK. He fell off a hard route, didn't hit the floor and got a cool video out of it.

If something like this hasn't happened to you, one could argue you are missing an important part of the experience of trad climbing. Indeed one will never forget how hard the floor is if you are lucky enough to come into contact with it.


With notable exceptions, you people are sheep, who see something and parrot the initial message given with it (See that two animals in one sentence). Had that been Dave MacLeod or some American saying hey dude rad fall, you would have been like, yeah awesome dude.

Gear Rips, People bang their heads. You should compliment nick on getting on this test piece and getting f*cking close.

Out.

In reply to Chris Craggs: If you are a Low E Grade Climber then yes its a big tick. Id say so.

Also, nice one mate. Disrespecting peoples achievements because you consider them below you. Bet that feels good.

In reply to Nick Nitro:

I've heard it frased...

"when it doubt, run it out... if still in doubt, scream and shout"

In reply to stumbler555:

Meh.

In reply to stumbler555: You're opening comment on the whole thread isn't disrespectful?
Well done.

In reply to deacondeacon: i must be like a ninja troll

In reply to stumbler555:

Correct. I was saying the same yesterday and nearly posted but it was a rambling post that didn't scan well

In reply to stumbler555:


There's a difference between ripping marginal/small/fiddly gear and ripping easy to place, obvious, good gear. One is unlucky, the other is incompetent.


Big deal. Bold E4s are usually easy if you can keep your head.

If I'd taken a fall like that off a route like Regent Street I'd be taking a long hard look at my gear placement and whether or not I was actually safe to be getting on routes like that rather than spraying BS like "if in doubt, run it out" as if that makes me some gnarly hardcore maverick (although falling off a route like Regent Street kind of implies the opposite).

Equally, I wouldn't want to climb with someone like that. Call me selfish but I don't want to see someone I like on the deck dying from a massive head wound/internal bleeding/whatever. I don't want to make the phonecall to their wife/husband/mother/kids and tell them the news about the bloody death of their loved one. Maybe I'm over cautious but the margin between walking away and having to make that phonecall looked too narrow for me in that video.

In reply to Pagan: I am finding this instant judgement based on one not very clear video rather regrettable. Most critics seem to be coming from the position that if you know what you are doing and place a nut well, it won't pop. But in reality, the only way you can find out if it really will pop or not is to fall on that nut. Since this doesn't happen, I don't think any of us can stand up and say that we are superior at placing gear to this chap.

The only way anyone can make an objective judgement is if they had seen the placement before it popped.

In reply to EeeByGum:

that's pretty much nonsense. It's the decision to press on above a single point of failure that was a mistake here. It would have been easy and 30 seconds work to place another nut from a resting position. We all make mistakes when climbing, but if you're nearly decking off very well protected routes, you're doing it wrong.

A few years back I assisted with a rescue at Stanage, having watched someone make the same mistake and hit the deck from the roof of Quietus. The guy in this video got away with it, but he made a mistake, pure and simple. I make no judgement about that, since we've all done it. On the other hand, passing it off as being well gnarly and part of climbing is idiocy, pure and simple.

In reply to stumbler555:


This is hilarious. Narrowly missing a deckout from a very well protected route is "an important part of the experience of trad climbing"? Paf.

In reply to EeeByGum:

The whole thread is a bit regrettable, but the 'judgement' seems as much a reaction to the attitudes of the OP and the self-professed 'star' of the video in what they've posted here as it is to the video itself.


Or perhaps from familiarity with the placement itself. If a bombproof runner is available, and a dodgy runner was placed it doesn't necessarily imply incompetence but it definitely does sort of look sideways at it and waggle its eyebrows.

In reply to stumbler555:

People fall off routes......doesn't necessarily make them shit. The end.

It worries me a little that you had the time to start a forum thread about it. It worries me a little that I'm even responding to it.

Now I must go.

In reply to stumbler555:

Taking falls, yes, part of the experience. Taking a massive winger off a well protected route, no.


I think people are just saying what the think. I've taken a lob in about the same place, went a fair way (5-6m) as the last runner was at the bottom of the headwall crack and there's a lot of rope stretch in the system by that point but the gear held and there was plenty to back it up. So I'm not applauding Nick's fall as it was way more than was necessary.


Well done by all means, particularly on a freezing day. Just check the gear next time...

In reply to David Riley:
. Absorbed some shock loading. In any case he was still ready to fend off obstructions


Aye ...... with his Scalp

The score could have been:

Gritstone:1 Human skull: 0

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

Excellent.

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

Thanks for the analysis. If the split was 36/64 or worse, then I'd have thought that would be obvious by eye, and you wouldn't bother.

Some interesting input from another (current) thread:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=539550&v=1#x7233839

In reply to stumbler555:
Basically the long and short of it is that there was no reason for a fall this large on a route like this. Stupid is the adjective that springs to mind. You can discuss the whys and wherefores but stupid and unnecessary.

In reply to Nick Nitro:

Don't take all they negs to heart dude. I'm with you.
Back in the late 80's I headed down to North Wales with a few mates - on the Saturday I onsighted 3 E5's on the slate. On the Sunday we headed up the pass and I thought I'd "Just nip up Left Wall" even worse I tried to be clever putting minimal gear in.
Got to the crux, foot popped and I nearly hit the ground on stretch.
All part of the learning process. Most of the climbers I know have experienced something like this so don't worry.

E

In reply to Enty: Well said. I think a lot of people round here aren't getting out climbing much.

In reply to stumbler555:

Watching the vid reminds me of Terry King doing the first free ascent in 68. He would have taken a similar fall ( if he had fallen )due to his rack of gear, which was always around 5 to 6 runners, no more. He climbed in a chest harness with all his runners around his neck ( this always worried me on the sea cliffs as we would have lost the lot in the sea if he fallen as in the vid ). When he did Regent St the crack was narrower and dirty, ( people continued to aid it for years not knowing it had been freed and widened the finger slots with their peg placements ) hence the E2 grade , but then a very futuristic route. I climbed with Terry quite a bit in the early 70s. He never trained , smoked , was an actor traveling back and fore to London and didn't get a lot of exercice yet he walked up Our Father ( third acent ). He laid off climbing for 6 - 7 years then his first week back lead Reticent Mass Murderer at Cratcliffe . Amazing climber.

In reply to bill briggs1: Hi Bill. I did Regent Street 30 minutes after Terry. Was that with you? It's so long ago I can't remember. We had been eying it up for weeks after aiding it and decided that morning that perhaps we should have a full English breakfast to fortify ourselves for such a major undertaking. This caused us to be late for the first ascent and Terry pipped us at the post. I don't remember him staying in the Peak Climbing Clubs cabin so we were unaware of his intentions.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Hi Al, no it was not me, they wouldn't let me in the Millstone hut in those days. Hope your well Bill.

In reply to bill briggs1: I'm well and still active but it doesn't get any easier does it? How about you are you still climbing? I've just returned from the alps and I'm off on the CC Morocco meet in a few weeks. This retirement malarkey is great.

In reply to GridNorth:

Glad your ok , still climbing , living near Tremadog , still never fallen off , after seeing the vid hope I never do. all the best Bill.

In reply to jonny2vests:

Extensive work by DAV, Jim Titt and others has shown that getting 50/50 equalization is massively difficult and is rarely achievable in the real world, even in systems that 'look' equalized by eye.

To quote Jim from one of the numerous and massively involved MP threads http://www.mountainproject.com/v/equalizing-figure-8-rope-anchor/107906806#... on the subject of equalisation:

How good we are at [manually] equalising is something else I´ve been checking. From what I´ve seen so far a 2 horizontal point system we can get fairly good, an unequal legged system is poor and a vertical system very poor. The 3 piece ones are more difficult!

And from elsewhere in the same thread backing this up:
I´ve just been trying some tests with average punters to see how well they achieve equalisation and one of the most popular `equalising´methods got a load distribution of 85%, 15% and 0% and with no apparent way of pre-determining which was going to be which.

So assuming we have just two horizontal anchors and you you are willing to hang around and equalise them very neatly you 'might' get a decent split of forces. In any other situation including vertically offset anchors (as per the fall in the video), you won't good equalisation and it is pretty much pointless to try.

However, climbers rarely 'equalise' cams in a horizontal break. So let us consider more closely the common situation of two nearby cams both just clipped to the rope forming a nice acute 'V'. This looks promising in term of equalisation but the situation in a fall is that one carabiner is clipped to the rope is in front of the other so the loaded rope will run over the two krabs side-by-side. However, friction over the two carabiners means that the loading is not symmetrical. [The loading ratio over two carabiner due to friction will be around 1.8-1.9 compared with 1.6 for a single carabiner.] Hence we could expect that the 'upper' cam may be loaded 1.9x more than the lower cam. So we are already in a situation that is worst than 36/64 without even considering off axis loading or imperfect initial equalisation.

Anyway, the more I consider it, the more convinced I am that the most reliable method of splitting peak loads of two pieces of gear is utilising both ropes as much as possible.

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:
I had to laugh at this after reading the post about the FFA by Terry King.Puts today's climbers to shame.

In reply to all:

The leader and belayer seemed happy about being filmed, and were presumably ok about it being posted on You Tube. This is like putting your head above the parapet to be shot at, so it seems reasonable to assume that they're happy to be criticised, too.

The belayer seemed too busy pulling faces at the camera to take up a decent starting belay position, and consequently the leader had both ropes running backwards between his legs, which looked a bit awkward.

The leader seemed a little too fixated on keeping both ropes between his legs. There were one or two moves when to the side might have been better. I couldn't see clearly, but it's possible that this contributed to his flipping upside down.

If you're standing in balance and looking at a crux section on which you may not be able to place gear for several moves, why would you not place two good runners if the placements are available? Otherwise, a single piece would have to be absolutely bomber.

In reply to jonny2vests:

There's a situation which has cropped up more than once for me where I want to equalise two runners for one rope so that I can clip a third runner with the other rope. With cams in parallel-sided, limestone horizontals, for example.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Like on Morning Slab, where you get three chances to do exactly this and no other gear!

In reply to bpmclimb:

I don't think they expected that anyone could be bothered, and would just watch the clip and go "eek, that's a whipper! thank god the second runner held!". Naively of course.



All valid points I'm sure, but for me, that just isn't what trad climbing is like. On trad climbs near my limit, I've dropped runners into the sea, spent an hour dithering on the crux for no good reason, crossed my ropes, gone completely off-route, overcammed friends, failed to weight-down spike runners which have lifted off, kicked out my crucial runner and had to fiddle in some crap RP in a state of abject terror, blah blah blah.

Other leads of course, have been a masterclass in exemplary trad practice.

The point is that there is no value nit-picking your way through someone else's climbing - I suppose it makes you look very experienced in comparison to these young whipper-snappers (sorry...) but it also gives some less favourable impressions too.

I'll say it again, damn that internet.

This is making me think more broadly about the information we make public about ourselves for everyone else to judge us by (the whole point of faecesbook of course). After reading this, you might conclude:

- only show yourself looking your smartest and most sexy, being brilliant at everything, otherwise the whole world will descend on you, telling you how pathetic and wrong you are.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I sort of agree with what you say, although I think there is a value in some criticism. For example, the point about where the belayer stands for the start of a trad route is, I think, worth making. It's quite common to see that pronounced angle in the rope at the first runner, the result of a careless habit, and which on trad is dangerous, if that runner isn't bomber and omnidirectional.

I watched a video clip showing a climbing fall where things did not go particularly well - the single top runner ripped and the leader finished upside down, tangled in rope, and pretty near the ground. I naturally started to speculate about what could have been done better. I didn't hesitate in posting my thoughts, because the climbers had clearly been ok about the clip being made public. I don't expect everyone to have the same view of it, and if someone thinks that my only motivation is to boost my ego and make myself look good/experienced/clever - well, I can't control that.

I don't wander up to climbers looking for something to criticise, but if I happen to see something I consider downright dangerous, I'll probably have a word. And in the context of a climbing forum, if it results in a constructive discussion of safety issues, I'll risk an unfavourable impression or two.

In reply to crossdressingrodney:

Yes, there's a couple of places on Suspension Bridge Buttress that spring to mind, too.

In reply to stumbler555: this also worried me...

youtube.com/watch?v=k77LsXLuWY4&

In reply to stumbler555:

>He fell off a hard route,

No, he didn't. He fell off a mid-grade classic and made a total cock of himself. As most of us have from time to time, to be sure.

>didn't hit the floor and got a cool video out of it.

Climbing's about competence (among many other things). Not about cool videos.

>Nick is an outstanding climber.

No, he isn't. He's a mid-grade punter, not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.


Oooh, I say! Get him. Well, as it happens, so have I, and I'm a shite climber, so I'm afraid he's a shite climber too.

In any case, taking life-threatening falls off routes two grades below your limit isn't something to be boasting about, you know.

jcm

In reply to all:

Haters gonna hate, climbers gonna climb.

In reply to Nick Nitro:



Most of the c**ks on here telling you how to do it, have never led anything harder than VD anyway..........

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKC and UKH:

It's almost too late for a contentious post, but I read this earlier today and was just reminded about it.

http://www.planetfear.com/articles/20_Questions_Airlie_Anderson_346.html
What is the worst thing about climbing?
People discussing it all the time and being negative about other people’s achievements. In England you never get to go climbing as much as you want so people sit on the computer and spew shit.

But I'm speaking as someone who has never taken a whipper onto a dodgy bit of gear. Many of us get away with a lot more than we realise.

In reply to stumbler555:

Hahaha UKC is so predictable

Only one peice of gear ripped, it could have been rock failure.

You guys need to get out climbing more, instead of Internet bashing. The usual suspects written all over this thread.

In reply to xplorer:

A good point .. but what you done on grit?

In reply to ERU:

How would that effect anything. The majority of my tradclimbing has been on grit. Accidents happen.

Go climbing mate, you might concentrate on your own game rather than criticising people's climbing abilities.

In reply to xplorer:

Yeah... But what have you done on grit?

In reply to xplorer:

I always wonder about people who sit at their computer and type about how other people sat at their computer should get out more.

Is it witty self-parody? Or are they just too thick to see the irony?

Those are the best posts in some ways, of course.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'm just highlighting the fact that UKC is full of idiots who love to criticise other climbers. It's a fact climbers are the worst bunch for it.

In reply to Vince McNally:

What have you done on grit,

In reply to Enty:

>Back in the late 80's I headed down to North Wales with a few mates - on the Saturday I onsighted 3 E5's on the slate. On the Sunday we headed up the pass and I thought I'd "Just nip up Left Wall" even worse I tried to be clever putting minimal gear in.
Got to the crux, foot popped and I nearly hit the ground on stretch.

I suspect the difference is that you and your mates knew you'd been an idiot and didn't post videos of the episode on Facebook.

jcm

In reply to xplorer:

You don't have to be an idiot to realise that the video depicts a climber acting foolishly and to say so. That seems to have been what the OP was after, so I expect he's enjoyed himself.

jcm

In reply to Enty:

What does that tell you about the grading on slate?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

C'mon John, back in the 80's there wasn't video otherwise he'd probably have posted it up, showing off his mullet along with his studley prowess..... Supplemented with clips of the obligatory rave that weekend!



Steve

In reply to xplorer:

Your new here right?

In reply to Vince McNally:

Hahaha. You typical UKCer. What's normal protocol, for me to speak when spoken to. To respect the stupid views of some really angry climbers, who simply can't use an Internet forum sensibly.

Your like a bunch of kids

In reply to xplorer:

No actually what I meant was you clearly dont get the long standing UKC joke "But what have you done on grit"

Happy to help

Vince

In reply to Vince McNally:

Oh rite, well it's a corker