UKC

Am I old school for this rule irrespective of route, rock or style?

Obviously this rule does not apply to bouldering.

In reply to The Lemming:

Yes, but you know that. However, there are still plenty of trad scenarios in which I have that attitude.

In reply to The Lemming:

yes, very. How can one progress unless one pushes the limit of what one can do at the moment? And the only way to do that is to go to the point where you fail, then work beyond it.

In reply to The Lemming:
I'm fairly sure the idea of climbing is to try not to fall. When you do it's highly likely to be intentional.

In reply to The Lemming:


Or politics.

In reply to The Lemming:

A bit old school.

In reply to The Lemming:

Old school, but also some times quite a smart thing to do. The thing is to now, when pushing your limit (if you wish) and face a possible lob is OK and when it is not.

Most goal oriented persons will lob a hudge amount of airtime, as for them getting that grade or tick is important... old school mountaineer might climb at a reasonable grade and never for the duration of their life, even if going out numerous times a week.

So each to their own.

In reply to The Lemming:

I don't agree with this theory, even though I myself haven't fallen on trad (not that I do much these days).

It was understandable in the days of old, with a hemp rope tied around your waste and almost no runners on craggy ground, a fall would have meant horrific injuries to you and quite probably your second as well (if multi pitching).

Gear back then was used as something which could maybe reduce the chances of the leader getting killed in the event of a fall, these days with harnesses, proper ropes and useful protection falling on a lot of routes amounts to little more than an inconvenience and the failure of the on sight tick.

Obviously on bolder routes the degree to which one avoids falling off becomes pretty clear to the leader pretty quickly, and this can even apply on some boulder problems. But usually such routes aren't undertaken lightly and you could argue "the leader must not fall" philosophy comes back into play there.

In reply to The Lemming:

Yes - on Indian Face.

No - on Raindogs.

Mick

In reply to The Lemming:

Old school is safe ... if I hadn't fallen I wouldn't have crushed two vertebrae

In reply to The Lemming:

I've only really seen it used with respect to winter routes and always took it to mean that a leader fall would rip the belay and pull the second down too.

I've probably been in that situation a few times but rarely if ever on terrain where a leader fall was actually likely.

In reply to hms:


I agree where the rock is steep/overhanging, and the pro is sound, but many lower grade climbs are not vertical or overhanging and there are lots of obstacles like ledges, protruding rocks etc to collide with if you do fall. I think this probably applies to the majority of slabs and climbs under Severe, where falling is certainly not a sensible option.

I don't know if anyone has researched climbing accidents but my gut feeling would be that more deaths and serious injuries from leader falls occur on lower grade climbs?

In reply to The Lemming:


I'm surprised so many people know what the OP is on about! The above just makes no sense to me at all.

In reply to The Lemming:

"The leader must not fall"

vs

"If you ain't flying, you ain't trying"

Both pure polarised bullshit, and as always the truth lies in-between.

In reply to The Lemming:
Yes, very old school - 1960s?

In reply to The Lemming:

Not falling has held back my lead grade over the years. Those who push their grades tend to ignore that one.

In reply to The Lemming:

I'm confused by the 14 dislikes simply because I do not understand what the dislikes are for.

Are they for a double negative, in that they agree with the leader must not fall?
Are they for some circumstances where a leader must not fall?
Are they of the opinion that the leader must fall on every style of climbing?
Are they of the opinion that the rule does or does not apply to bouldering?
Are they my faithful band who just like to click dislike?

Basically, the clicking of dislike with the OP does not add anything to the discussion other than to confuse matters because I don't have a scooby what your views on the matter are.

As for me and my mates, we will still climb within and on the edge of our limits depending on how much enjoyment or how much we want to push our limits, but through it all there is the underlying principle that we will not climb to the point that we will intentionally fall.

Accidents happen, but we won't climb to the point of deliberate failure and fall either on trad, sport or whatever. As for bouldering, crash-mats are making this more safe, or the perception of safeness that may not actually exist just because we no longer climb with an off-cut of carpet rather than a slumberland size mattress.

In reply to The Lemming:


I don't climb hard enough for this to be of much relevance to me.
However surely its up to the individual and why they climb. I had a friend in the 70s who told me one should only retreat head first and he generally followed this philosophy. I climb for interest rather than to push myself.
Also I don't really see the difference between falling onto a bomber nut or a bolt, indeed its quite possible nowadays for some trad climbs to have many more good points of protection than a sport climb.

In reply to The Lemming:

Minimizing the falls makes it more likely you'll live to be old school!

In reply to The Lemming:
'More safe' or rather 'less unsafe' is right for bouldering falls - I know more people who've hurt themselves bouldering than trad climbing (even though I know more trad climbers than boulderers).

If you never fall off on sport, you're seriously holding yourself back but each to their own. Same for trad, to a slightly lesser degree. Consider this example of a friend of mine at the weekend just gone. He was most of the way up the crux of Left Wall, with plenty of good gear below him and about 30m off the deck. His head wouldn't let him climb past his last runner because the climbing was still difficult, so instead of going for it at the risk of a pretty safe fall, he sat on the runner.

In reply to BazVee:

It's Your with a capital Y approach to the sport and you don't have to push your limit to enjoy climbing. Loads of people go jogging and never enter a competitive race. Others run on the roads while many love cross country. Not to mention hurdling, sprinting, etc etc. Have fun, stay safe. These days you can fall/not fall and have both.

In reply to The Lemming:



There are two types of falling when climbing - unintentionally and intentionally.

On trad, the few falls I've had, have been the former, not the latter.

At the end of the day, it's about what you're comfortable with, and what you want to get out of your climbing?

Some folk enjoy a leisurely approach to their climbing with minimal risk, others want to push themselves ever harder, to the point of falling.

The former approach doesn't guarantee you won't fall, and the latter approach doesn't guarantee you'll get better.

In reply to DaveHK:


I think even in winter mixed there are rare occasions when falling is acceptable. People fall at dry tooling crags all the time with crampons and axes and there is bound to be the odd well protected stiff crux where the leader can just go for it. I think on ice there really is no good reason to fall though.

In reply to The Lemming:



You say regardless of style (except bouldering) so presumably very cruxy well protected moves and red pointing included? If yes; pretty old school.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:


I may be confused, but why would I be roped up for bouldering?

In reply to The Lemming:


I'm now confused. You bought up bouldering in your original post. That's why I used the phrase 'You say...' at the start of the sentence.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

The bouldering reference was to stop the UKC Pedants from questioning all types of leading and then saying that you don't lead while bouldering.

In reply to The Lemming:

Well if the leader must never fall you must as well free solo everything?

I think it depend a lot on the route, it's more the case of the leader should understand if a fall is risky or not and adjust their route choice/grades/climbing accordingly.

I've been much more scared on some chossy VD's than on a nice steep VS with good gear

In reply to springfall2008:




Exactly.

I get really hacked off with all this 'if you're not flying, you're not trying' bollocks that often gets sprayed around on here.

That approach may well be appropriate for experienced climbers pushing the E grades with the requisite level of judgement and skill (especially regarding gear placement and fall out zones) to be able to sensibly calculate the risk, but for relatively inexperienced climbers - especially those coming to trad from predominantly indoor and sport backgrounds - it's a potential recipe for disaster.

If I had the choice between taking a deliberate lob off Right Wall, or Jericho Wall in the Clachaig Gully, the E5 would be my choice, not the Hard Severe!

In reply to Goucho:

Totally agree. Falling off Diffs is usually a very bad idea. It's often a bad idea for VS. It can be a bad idea in the low extremes depending on the route and the skill set of the team. If its a well protected E5 and an experienced leader and belayer its normally OK (and much of the cited expert advice is really targetted at aspirants for sucb routes).

In reply to The Lemming:


well, you don't!

In reply to The Lemming:

Yes it's very old school. Back in the day climbers used hawser laid ropes that didn't stretch, had no harnesses, tied in directly to the rope, and very little in the way of running belays. So falling off was not a good idea and would most likely result in injury or worse.

Techniques and equipment have evolved a lot since then so now taking lead falls is perfectly safe and normal a lot of the time. But there are still some routes, or bits of routes, where it's still not safe to fall.

In reply to The Lemming:

Dunno i fall of on trad spart lime grit sandstone... crazy ambitios but crap skill means i fall off a lot, my belayers have gotten good... i love it, wierdly ive only ever decked out indoors.

In reply to The Lemming:


So that's fine. I merely did the same thing. Where's the confusion?

In reply to stp:



I guess the phrase originated from the time when perhaps you had a bit of potential protection (rope around tree/spike/chock stone) but the chances of it being a good idea to rely on it were so slim it was best to assume that you weren't safe, thus should never fall.
Perhaps the phrase should be modernised to "the leader falling may not be a good idea". No so catchy.

In reply to Stairclimber:


my point was that falling can result in injury and this can have consequences ... for me my crushed vertebrae meant I was unable to take up my chosen career of flying in the armed services ... I had a place but was failed medically, life a bitch eh.

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

Or even less catchy; "the leader should make a thorough and comprehensive risk assessment before deciding whether falling is a viable option"

In reply to GrahamD:


Not catchy but it's what we do. (mostly)

In reply to The Lemming:

If you don't fall off you can't get hurt. I'd say that was a pretty sensible way to approach things.

In reply to GrahamD:


It might be too late at that point, your arms are pumped and you have the choice to push on or fall off eventually...

In reply to The Lemming:

Despite the sentiment I don't actually see very many proper trad falls, lots of slumping onto gear but very few falls out of exhaustion/slip/broken hold when really trying a move

Also, just being difficult but is 'the leader must not fall' not the same as the ethic to on-sight/flash a climb

In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

I agree though the modern version could be: If the leader never falls they should try some harder routes.

In reply to trouserburp:


That's because falling off is scary and most climbers climb well within the comfort zone of their ability most of the time.

In reply to trouserburp:


No - the former is for safety reasons while the latter is for ego/satisfaction reasons.

In reply to trouserburp:


My climbing partner seems to be managing about one fall a year on Trad and that's climbing once a week for half the year.


Surely not, if you really "Must not fall" then you would top-rope the route first right?

In reply to springfall2008:


It wouldn't surprise me if this was about average for trad (onsight) regulars. Some take considerably more (safe) falls than this but many considerably less (like once every few years) or their only fall was that time they got injured.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Luckily no injuries either time, the first one was a big lob onto the second runner and just missed a ground fall. The other was more slipping off onto gear.

In reply to springfall2008:

No falls for me (yet) this year, which I'm happy about. No failures either, so either going well or not trying hard enough!

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I haven't taken a trad fall yet, but I started on HVS this year and it's that sort of grade it's bound to happen on...

In reply to GrahamD:


Shortened to, oooooh shit....

In reply to springfall2008:


Over 20 years trad, I have had two falls.

The first was on an E1 where the hold ripped from the wall and I took a 30ft doozy.

The second was on the Peapod where I slipped 1cm or there abouts.

Not a fan of falling

In reply to The Lemming:

Unless it's Theresa May. She must fall ASAP.