However, when you take the fall just for the sake of taking it, this is a risk with little or no reward IMO.

Stout 5.7 eh?

Most people (exempt are some of the super humans here) don't like to face the fact that pieces they think are bomber, aren't always that way. The chances are slim, but they're there, like it or not, to many variables. File that fact and get on with it. Now say you intentionally take a fall onto that slim chance that a piece or two pulls and you get hurt. Your now totally unnecessary fall onto gear not only ruins your day, but also your partner you tied in with and anybody else in the area that you've dragged into this completely and utterly avoidable situation.

Seems pretty stupid to me.

No where in this train wreck of a discussion has there been mention by me of a distinction between an accidental fall onto gear or an intentional fall, either have the same small possibility of pulling. Some added 'tortured logic', not mine. This isn't about being scared of trusting your gear either. It's acknowledging that fact and moving past it. Climb long enough and you learn that a bomber looking piece can pull (except you super humans). I'd bet your odds go up the more you do it too. You and any of your friends (I'm haven't said who can or can't) are welcome to toss chances to the wind and take unnecessary falls. Screw your day up if you want, just think about how your unnecessary show might end up effecting others. I find there are enough risks without adding more. Minimize your risks the best you can, but you can't eliminate them. Taking intentional falls onto gear is not something a person should advocate on these boards without not at least explaining its shortcomings. I'm not going to argue all these little I know what I'm doing, so and so says, you can hold your tongue on the left or your scared sidelined interjections. If your having trouble, reread the first three sentences of the first paragraph.

Except that it's not. No one would take an intentional fall if they perceived no benefit in doing so. Learning to trust your gear and developing a relaxed mindset when climbing over your gear are presumably the rewards being sought.

Jay

It would help if the first three sentences (and the rest of the "paragraphs" for that matter) were written in something that resembled English.

But having said that, I think you could make the case that an intentional fall on gear could actually be safer, when you consider it's more likely that the leader doing this will pay much closer attention to his gear placement and to backing up that placement in case it fails.

Must be a "Warriors Way" thing. I've come to realize that if you haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, you just don't get it.

GO

It would help if the first three sentences (and the rest of the "paragraphs" for that matter) were written in something that resembled English.

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

edited to fix quote

Must be a "Warriors Way" thing. I've come to realize that if you haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, you just don't get it.

GO

I was right - he is saying what I thought he was saying. Falling on gear is a crap shoot, so don't roll the dice when you don't have to.

GO

Scraping the bottom was trying to decipher the crap you've written. Look, don't get me wrong, I think your view is just as valid as mine. And if you don't like the idea of taking intentional falls, by all means don't do it. But to berate those who see value in it is just stupid. I see it as a useful exercise for those qualified to do so in a acceptably safe manner. Obviously, we are not going to agree on this.

You disappoint me, Gabe; I'm accustomed to well-thought-out comments from you.

As with any other person who sets out to teach, Arno's methods won't appeal to (or be understood by) everybody. But to portray those of us who've found this stuff useful as mindless followers of a raving fanatic is something I'd expect from someone with a lot less intelligence than you usually show.

JL

No one has mentioned the obvious. Taking an intentional fall on gear can be made arbitrarily safe by placing back up pieces. Say you place two pieces that you judge to be bombproof at the 30-foot mark on a route, climb 5 feet higher and place two more pieces that you judge to be bombproof. Climb 5 feet higher and take your fall. Your judgment would have to be prretty damn bad for all four pieces to fail, in which case you're probably doing yourself a favor by removing yourself from the gene pool sooner rather than later.

Jay

No one has mentioned the obvious. Taking an intentional fall on gear can be made arbitrarily safe by placing back up pieces. Say you place two pieces that you judge to be bombproof at the 30-foot mark on a route, climb 5 feet higher and place two more pieces that you judge to be bombproof. Climb 5 feet higher and take your fall. Your judgment would have to be prretty damn bad for all four pieces to fail, in which case you're probably doing yourself a favor by removing yourself from the gene pool sooner rather than later.

Jay

Of course, but I just don't see what this gains you, aside from the equally obvious insight that good gear, equalized into an anchor, will hold a small fall.

Of course, but I just don't see what this gains you, aside from the equally obvious insight that good gear, equalized into an anchor, will hold a small fall. And that falling on several anchors backed up to each other in sequence is safe (duh).

Dunno about when you go trad climbing, but this has zero relevance to the kind of climbing I do, or what makes me feel confident versus not (sportclimbing notwithstanding).

GO

I once attended a lunch put on by the Moonies. (I'm dating myself, do they still exist any more?) Of course I didn't know who was sponsoring the lunch beforehand - they were cagy about it. The interesting thing about the event, to me, was that everyone on the inside had a clear vision of how wonderful it was, but was entirely incapable of explaining, in any clear and concise way, *why* it was so wonderful, or what the great insight was that they were all sharing. The answer to all the questions was the same: "you have to go to the weekend workshop to 'get it'".

Since that day, I've been naturally suspicious of any group in which you have to read the sacred texts and go to the magical workshops before they can begin to explain what makes it so worthwhile.

For me, I find that falling is pretty much just what happens when you let go. And there are times when letting go is cool, and many more times when it ain't. I don't need anyone's help in interpreting which is which - seems pretty plain to me.

See, here's the thing: fear is not always rational. Of course every competent trad climber knows that a clean fall onto good gear should be safe.

But sometimes rational logic just doesn't matter. One can still have a hard time committing to difficult moves over gear, even when you are convinced it is safe. This is the target audience.

Heh, so now we're Moonies, eh? My respect for you falls with each post.

You make it sound like Arno is running some sort of cult that preaches the only valid way to climb and that if you don't believe his way, you're damned to climber hell. If you've gotten that impression from some misguided person who's taken his workshop, don't blame Arno or his ideas.

Let me ask you this, Gabe: if you're too suspicious to read the book or take the workshop, how the hell else are you going to "get it" (whatever it is that you imagine "it" to be)? I could understand if you read the book and/or took a workshop and found it boring or stupid (some people do, I didn't find the book too compelling myself). But you seem to think that trying Arno's methods is some sort of rigid indoctrination, rather than a training resource that you can take or leave.

Do you feel the same way about "The Self-Coached Climber?" Do you think Dan Hague and Doug Hunter are running a cult and that people like me and Jay have drunk their Kool-aid?

That's great. You got to that point your way; I got to that point in part by working with Arno. There's no reason for insults.

JL

Argh! You make my point! So this is what the WW teaches you, and I think it's a bunch of bull! In real life climbing, a clean fall onto a single piece is not necessarily safe, and brainwashing yourself into 2+2=4 maybe might help you send routes at your absolute limit, but it's just not good long-term plan IMO.

Look, fear management in trad climbing basically boils down to three elements, for me:

1 - being in a zone in which gear is not available, and you must choose to climb without falling, or back off.

At the beginning of this season, I "took" my way up a climb, placing tons of gear. It was abysmal. Now in theory, I could have placed much less gear and taken lots of clean falls. According to the WW, I did just the wrong thing, right?

Rational logic? Convinced it's safe? I dunno, most of the time it's not very safe, but you go for it because you want it that bad.

Argh! You make my point! So this is what the WW teaches you, and I think it's a bunch of bull! In real life climbing, a clean fall onto a single piece is not necessarily safe, and brainwashing yourself into 2+2=4 maybe might help you send routes at your absolute limit, but it's just not good long-term plan IMO. Besides which, it seems unnecessary to me.

Look, fear management in trad climbing basically boils down to three elements, for me:

1 - being in a zone in which gear is not available, and you must choose to climb without falling, or back off. This is a serious choice, and your life may depend on the ability to keep your shit together. To my mind, the best practice for keeping your head together in this situation is soloing.

2 - being in a zone in which the climbing is easy enough, and speed is a necessity (storm or darkness approaching) that the right choice is to choose to run it out. This is very similar to #1, except that at any point when the wigginess gets too great, you can plug in some gear to reset the scare clock back to zero. It's a scary situation, but not a serious one, so long as you're careful. I think the best practice for this is just lots of mileage on the sharp end.

3 - being in the zone where continuing to go up means committing to a hard sequence you're not sure you can complete. This is the case where you guys are the most prescriptive, but this is the case where I really don't think there are any across-the-board one size fits all solutions. Every time this happens, for each person, things are different.

At the beginning of this season, I "took" my way up a climb, placing tons of gear. It was abysmal. Now in theory, I could have placed much less gear and taken lots of clean falls. According to the WW, I did just the wrong thing, right? But the reality of the situation was that on that day, on that climb, I just barely had the power to pull three feet in a row, plug in a piece, and hang on it. What good would it have done me to go four or five feet instead, and then fallen ten feet?

Rational logic? Convinced it's safe? I dunno, most of the time it's not very safe, but you go for it because you want it that bad. Other times, you just don't have it in you, safe or not. The whole way you frame the discussion is just totally anathema to the way I see it. You're saying you're incapacitated by fear, in a safe situation when you've got lots of good gear, clean falls, and plenty of strength in reserve? I just don't see what that's about.

GO
Edited to fix the quote/end-quote.

You have to realize how it sounds! You're painting yourself as exactly what I described. "You'll never understand, and I can't begin to explain it to you, until you take the weekend workshop." Don't you see the irony?

You want a nutshell explanation of Arno's teaching?