UKC

What does "free solo" mean as opposed to "solo"? I've always understood that to climb solo is to climb without the protection of a rope. What is the purpose of adding the word "free" in this context?

The 'free' part just distinguishes the kind of unroped solo you describe from a roped (self-belayed) solo, which confusingly might also be climbed free!

It's to define between the different types of route climbing that you do on your own e.g. Aid Soloing, Rope Soloing, Daisy Soloing and Free Soloing. Free indicating that you are free climbing i.e. not weighting any gear or using fixed ropes etc. You could go even further down the rabbit hole with 'Free Rope Soloing' but most people tend to assume that the rope solo ascent style will be specified by the ascentionist if necessary/relevant. 

It's an Americanism - they use it to distinguish from roped soloing on big walls, which apparently is fairly common over there.

In reply :

Thanks

Going back well over twenty years I've always understood that in US climbing, the "free" is the antonym of "aid", so Americans have distinguished free climbing from aid climbing. Because aid in the UK has always been so marginal, if you did a an aid route at the weekend, you would say "I climbed an aid route last weekend". If you said "I climbed a route at the weekend" everyone would just presume you had climbed it 'free', "free climbing" is just normal climbing here, so the 'free' has never been applied.  

It just stuck for Honnold, and those soloists that came before him on the basis it sounds cool I reckon.

Also known (in America) as third-classing. Third class, in the YDS, being a trail that involves scrambling without the need for rope protection. But a movie called "Third class" probably wouldn't have attracted so much attention.

'Free' has been used in the UK for as long as I can remember, initially I believe in verb form (e.g. 'Fawcett freed the route of its aid points') and soon afterwards as an adjective ('He climbed it free'). You're probably right that the Americans were the ones to make it into the compound noun 'free climbing'.

To distinguish from aid soloing no? Especially on big walls with bolts/pegs

Absolutely, and you've been climbing for longer than me, but I don't remember anyone ever describing just going 'normal' rock climbing in the UK as "free climbing". In fact back in the 90s I guess, I remember jokes after reading about this "free climbing" malarkey, probably in US magazines or the earliest internet groups, along the lines of "free climbing, is that sneaking into the climbing wall without paying?" ho ho.  

But I just feel that the "free" and "solo" of "free solo" are sort of separate, at least originally. Free as in not aid, and solo as in not roped. 

It's just modern bollocks.

camping > wild camping (and all the rest)

climbing > multi-pitch climbing

shot > golf shot

     > like

People will come along and say ooh it clarifies an important difference, but we know that's bollocks too.

I don't think that's quite how it breaks down. As John pointed out in his first reply post it is simply used to distinguish unroped soloing from roped soloing - ie solo as in alone/partnerless, free as in 'free of ropes, gear* etc'; the latter by default normally rules out aid climbing but, in this particular instance, isn't what the 'free' is actually referring to.

* Ice/mixed free solo obviously involves tools and crampons but none of the other stuff.

Not only. They use it to mean soloing without ropes - what we normally just call "soloing".

It definitely doesn't include rope solo free climbing (e.g Pete Whittakers Freerider-in-a-day)

Languages evolves and words take on different meanings all the time, that's not modern bollocks it's just what happens and has always happened.

As has been described in numerous ways already, "free " is added to distinguish the style from all the other variants of soloing.   

I think it was always assumed that it would be both rope free and climbing free, ie the  " best " possible style, otherwise some additional explanation would be appropriate.

As others have said it distinguishes between free/aid when stating it is a solo.

However it is implicit/assumed that it involves no rope if you don't mention one and solo. Because you could free rope-solo (see the excellent YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/c/YannCamusBlissClimbing to find out how lead rope-solo) or you could also aid rope-solo which the method to protect is pretty much the same but aiding instead. FWIW.. my last climbing was aid rope-solo

(edit: I wanted to add the word lead to that so it's clear I don't mean top rope solo in any of this duiscussion, but when you are alone are you the "leader" or the "second"? you have to be both so "lead" feels an odd word to use)

So it is the lack of the word "rope" when combined with solo that's the real kicker, rather than the word free. That doesn't stop some people thinking that "free climbing" means climbing unroped, just politely nod and smile and ignore those people

The term "free solo" was rarely if ever used prior to Honnold's film. The film was originally going to be called "Solo" but this conflicted with a Star Wars derived film about Han Solo.

That's why we all cringe when everyone from our neighbours to our grans use the phrase "free soloing" when what the mean is 'soloing'. It's a term spliced from marketing. It doesn't derive from within climbing.

As someone who 'wildshops' at Tesco rather than getting a delivery, i take umbrage at your remark! On occasion i also "free wildshop" on the local high street. 😉

You are mistaken. It derives from within American climbing, where it has been common usage since long before the Honnold film.

Rarely in the UK but in commonly in the US for reasons that have been explained numerous times upthread.

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/106198674/free-soloing

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/106618505/fall-while-free-soloi...

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/107361493/red-rock-free-soloing...

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/107087165/free-solos-in-the-roc...

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/106834042/suggestions-on-a-flat...

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/106399321/solo

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/107232744/free-soloing-and-the-...

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/106146378/enmasse-free-soloing-...

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/106178044/free-soloing-building...

As this was a film about a US climber in Yosemite made by US film makers I think we can give them a pass. 

Indeed. Royal Robbins, writing in 'Advanced Rockcraft' [La Siesta Press, 1973]: "There are two basic types of solo rockclimbing - roped and free. In roped soloing one protects oneself by belaying. Free soloing is climbing without a rope or other protection." There follows a paragraph headed "FREE SOLO".

Yeah, I'll happily concede that point, hence my saying the term was "rarely if ever used prior to Honnold's film". In my travels to the states and time in the (UK) climbing scene and the reading of US climbing mags, i just don't recall the term being commonly used. 

Notwithstanding that terminology evolves and changes with time - 'da kidz may well have developed climbing language, but for me, i still never use the phrase 'free solo' and have never had need to. Maybe I'm just old?

Popularisation of the term is undoubtedly linked to Honnold. His film definitely was going to be called "Solo" had it not been for the Han Solo film, so Honnold was happy with what 'soloing' described.

For me "Free Solo" falls in a similar category as "Free Climbing". Everyone in climbing understands what it means for a route to be "freed", but who refers to "free climbing"? You'll find the term does exist on threads and forums, but it's rarely used by climbers.

No, 'solo' as in on your own. It then gets divided into 'free' (without ropes), 'roped' (with ropes) and 'aid' (with aid). 

Soloing to mean on your own and without a rope is more of a Britishism.

Just nipping up to Stanage for some free on-sight solo climbing.

Is that wild climbing? Like wild swimming and camping?

Well ok, you say so but I disagree. Definitely in the 90s in American climbing books and magazines, free climbing was to distinguish it from aid climbing. Hence Lynn Hill was the first person to free climb the Nose. That never meant she climbed it with out ropes.

"At the end of my competition career I felt like things were evolving more towards the indoor format and it really wasn't how I started to climb and it didn't represent the values of climbing in a complete way and so I decided I would do something like this as a retirement gesture. John Long said 'hey Lynnie you should go up and try to free climb The Nose'. So it just happened to be the perfect goal for me and I liked the fact this climb was in Yosemite because I remember going there and just seeing the valley and it was just mind blowing how beautiful it was."

Lynn Hill's autobiography - via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Hill#The_Nose

I very much doubt Long was suggesting she solo the Nose and Hill misunderstood him!

edit: as this is UKC I would be remiss to not also note this little bit from the Wiki article "Hill first attempted to free climb The Nose in 1989 with Simon Nadin, a British climber she had met at the World Cup that year." They didn't do it on that first attempt, but supposedly the Yosemite hardmen were very impressed not only by Hill, but by Nadin's efforts on his first ever time on a big wall! Maybe the Roaches are training for everything!

I was trying to explain the reasoning behind the term 'free soloing'. That being different to 'free climbing'. You're correct that the word 'free' on it's own in climbing nearly always means without aid. Except of course when put in front of the word 'soloing' when the meaning changes.

But I think we all agree that the double meaning of 'free' doesn't help the terminology. 'Ropeless soloing' would be a less confusing, but perhaps less engaging, term.

How long do you think that's been the meaning? Because as I say, going back 30 years now, I've understood Americans using free solo to mean it the way I've tried to explain. Do you think the "free" in "free solo" has always been different to the "free" in "free climbing"? This seems doubtful.

Hijack; here is an article on soloing UKC'ers might find interesting:

https://www.climbing.com/people/free-solo-rock-climbing-alex-honnold-histor...

It just means you don't have to pay anyone to climb up it

I have no idea of timescales, but really can come to no other conclusion than answer Yes to your question above. I think we have to accept that 'free solo' is clearly to distinguish from rope soloing which is clearly to distinguish from aid soloing. If we were to take your definition of free soloing as "unaided climbing without a rope" (as opposed to mine of "without a rope, alone"), then what is rope soloing? An ascent with ropes without ropes?

It's only quite recently that self-belayed free climbing has been a thing. Before that people would self-belay on aid. The distinction then was between free solo (meaning unroped) and aid solo (meaning roped but aided.) It's particularly unfortunate that with the subsequent arrival of self-belayed free climbing, the term 'free' seems to have been retained rather than 'unroped'.

But is this just a logical conclusion based on how the term is used now? Or is it based on how you've heard Americans use the term over the decades? 

But that's not what I'm saying because of course it has to be solo as well. 

If you rope solo, that is "rope soloing"! I guess people will say if it was a rope soloed aid route or free route, or that might be obvious from what route it is. I've rope soloed a few aid routes, but I haven't rope soloed any free climbing routes, unless you count top rope soloing. Which I don't.

I tend to agree. I don't think the evidence/arguments have been convincing so far. It seems more likely to me the whole thing has just become messy as time has passed coupled with an imprecise use of language.

It is all a bit of a mess really. There's three different things to communicate really (potentially 4 or more depending on how niche you go) and we often use only one or two words to describe what happened, because we think the context fills in the rest. If we always fully qualified everything it would be pretty straightforward to understand, but that's not what people are like and it would get rid of interesting discussions like this.

1. Are you by yourself? If yes then use 'solo'. Pretty much everyone agrees on this I think. Water gets muddied a bit if you 'solo' with other people, but if you're not attached by a rope it's probably fair to say soloing.

2. Free climbing or aid climbing? Pretty self explanatory. The only thing that can muddy the water here is if people understand 'free' to mean without ropes, rather than without aid.

3. Rope or no rope? Also pretty self explanatory. Sadly (from a clarity point of view, if not an aesthetic one), 'no rope' and 'ropeless' don't seem to ever be used. This is awkward, because then we have to infer whether the lack of a 'roped' or 'rope' qualifier means 'ropeless' or 'roped but didn't say it'.

(4. Daisy or no daisy? Are you protecting yourself with daisy chains attached to gear, but no rope. Most commonly done when speed soloing aid routes, but it can be done in a [free, solo] context as well. Not very common I imagine.)

The issue in understandability is that often these things are inferred based on the context:

"I went soloing at Stanage". This usually means [free, ropeless, solo]. It could be [free, rope, solo] though if someone went to shunt something, but you'd probably expect someone to clarify that because the default context for soloing at Stanage is [free, ropeless, solo].

"I soloed an El Cap route last week". Probably means [aid, rope, solo]. These days it could mean [free, rope, solo], or in one particular case [free, ropeless, solo/surrounded by camera crew...].

I think it's fair enough that in most contexts, soloing normally means [free, ropeless, solo] and adding the free and the ropeless is pointless and makes it sound less good. Does make for confusion in more complicated scenarios though.

Can't really comment on the history stuff, but I imagine it's an evolved over time mess as nikoid says.

That's just modern bollocks.

Word.

Both Honnold in FS and Tommy Caldwell in Dawn Wall explain what they mean by the term ‘free solo’. 

IIRC it’s what I’ve always understand it as:

The term Free Solo describes 2 things

Free: no aid used. Ropes for protection only.

Solo: no ropes.

It’s not a necessary term in the UK because we assume all climbs are free as that’s exactly what the vast majority are.

it’s necessary in the US as aid climbing is very much a thing ie “how did you climb the nose? Free or aid”

I don't think that's quite right. Again, referring to Robbins' 'Advanced Rockcraft' (mentioned above), he specifically refers to the Barnett System (for roped soloing) as being 'especially useful for self-belayed free climbing.'

I think people (including myself) have been using similar systems for self-belayed free climbing for a very long time - certainly long before things like the Silent Partner were ever thought of.

And what about the Bonatti Piller in 1955? It would not all be climbed on aid, most of the pegs came from later ascents.

Al Rouse wrote an article on alpine soloing in Mountain mag/early 70's, it detailed all sorts of tricks to use when back roping as roped lead  soloing was often called  then.

Hopefully Deuce4 might be along soon to give some history from prior to 1955.

<sits back with a little self-satisfied smile on his face/> 

Hmm.  Solo (the movie) came out in 2018. The term Free Soloing has been in use on UKC since I joined in 2004 (and most likely beforehand), so I don't think you can give Honnold any credit for popularising the term. 

As if by magic, another definition:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/30/briton-adam-lockwood-poses-wo...

We can't give Honnold credit for popularising the term?

"Free Solo', the documentary film of Alex Honnold's historic solo of Freerider on El Capitan, has added to its growing list of international film awards by clean-sweeping all seven trophies across the seven Creative Arts categories in which it was nominated at the 71st Emmy Awards in the United States. In the same week, the term 'free solo' earned a place in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, in both verb and noun form."

https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2019/09/free_solo_enters_merriam-webster_di...

Yes, it changes when you look at it in a mountaineering context. You might both be unroped but you wouldn't usually call it a solo ascent of the route/peak.

Yes, I think once again it's very context dependant. In a mountaineering context solo does (to me anyway) to a certain extent imply by yourself, i.e. not in a group, even if you're all unroped. This is a bit of a contrast to Stanage where you could go soloing with your mate.

Having said that, even in a mountaineering context I think soloing is an acceptable term to use to describe being unroped and climbing, even if you're with someone else. E.g. "We finished all the hard pitches, so we just put the rope away and soloed to the top." This makes perfect sense to me and seems totally valid. Might be clearer if 'simul-soloed' was used instead, not sure.

It's all a mess. My previous post was optimistic that the 'solo' part is pretty self explanatory. Thinking about it a bit more solo can really mean/imply a couple of things (probably more I've not thought of).

1. Not attached to a rope with someone else on the other end.
I think this is always implied by 'solo'. This is separate from the rope or no rope distinction within soloing, which is about whether you are using a rope to self belay or not.

2. The above (no partner on rope), plus being by yourself, i.e. no-one else around.
I think this is what you're getting at by soloing in a mountaineering context Michael? This is a concept where the waters are easily muddied - if my mates are 'soloing' a route with me (i.e. all climbing unroped) then I'm not soloing in the mountaineering sense, but what if other people are around who I don't know? Is it even possible to solo Everest or Mont Blanc these days with all the other people around?

Tandem solo, have done this numerous times on the Ben with a mate, Hadrians, psychedelic wall, tower ridge, zero etc, fun and sociable.

Ah cool, not heard it called tandem solo before, I'd call it simul solo - whatever you call it, it's definitely fun.

In the UK, and outside of the big wall context, I take "solo" to mean on your own, without ropes or aid. In other words, the "free" bit is redundant, because it's already implied. Further clarification is only needed for other modes of ascent (such as roped solo).

BTW some climbers will log an ascent using fixed rope and shunt or similar as a type of solo, which I think is pushing it (even though there's no partner): a sub-category of toproping would seem more reasonable ..... despite the negative effect on logbook stats

A related problem is that the general non-climbing public get hold of these terms (from high-profile films, etc) and then apply them with only the vaguest idea about the meanings. Hence "free climbing" is rarely used among UK climbers, but is commonplace among laypersons, who use it to mean soloing. Strangely, however, they are very aware of the mode of climbing where you "bang bits of metal into the rock". Unfortunately, most non-climbers aren't that interested in a dissertation on climbing history and practices: their eyes will glass over within a couple of minutes, and what we say will instantly be forgotten.

I can usually get it down to about thirty seconds; I'm sure that many other posters are similarly adept.

I don’t think we ever called it anything. Just did it together. Daftest one, to the top of Sloth, then reverse it.

Did you used to do up Ruby Tuesday, down Sloth, up Humdinger, down Saul's Crack?

Many years ago I let someone solo past me on Humdinger and carefully watched their foot placement which helped me make the long reach, I wondered at the time if it was you.

I tend to differentiate "camping" as camping on a designated site that has at least basic amenities and you paid to be there and wild camping as camping somewhere remote that isn't, doesn't and you didn't.

Ah, but what is it called if you head up Point Five trailing your newly bought rope to give it its first run?

Now there’s a thing. I reckon I saw philb1950 solo down the Sloth once. I had not long (led!) done it myself so the sort of thing to remember. Mid ‘80’s?

Yes at the time Ron and myself lived in Buxton and we used to go soloing on the Roaches a lot. We used to get up to some stupid tricks, especially soloing potentially loose routes at Stoney. But we both luckily got away with it.

Solo down Sloth? The thought makes me feel a bit queasy

Definitely wasn't Ron 😁

Although you were a well known climber with several significant routes in the Peak, your visage wasn't as well publicised as his.

If that's true, then it's a good job that they got ahead of Disney with the name Free Solo. Now, if Disney want to make a sequel in which Han Solo gets frozen in carbonite and needs rescuing, they'll be stuck for a title.  Oh wait......

Surely that is called "moving together"?

Without a rope, simul solo covers it, don't know where  tandem solo came from,  just inventing a new term!

Just seems odd saying solo when you are with someone.

To me 'moving together' implies a rope between the two (or more) people, so not the same as simul-solo. Might not imply that to other people.

Indeed. Or "falling together", as Tom Patey might have put it.

Does it?  This must happen a lot on longer routes when you just decide to solo it with a mate.  Not sure it needs a special term.

Agreed. My partner and I soloed Cioch Nose as a rest day activity while we were up in Scotland recently. It would never have occurred to me to describe it as anything other than a solo.