|
ouflyboy9
Mar 22, 2004, 3:39 PM
Post #1 of 59
(16052 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 103
|
I was wondering how many of you agreed or disagreed with Simon's decision. I'm still on the fence about it. However, I do most of my climbing with my little bro and I don't think that I could have done it.
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
Mar 22, 2004, 3:43 PM
Post #2 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
I bet your brother could, though.
Simon did exactly what he had to do. Quit focusing on that moment and consider the mistakes that got them in that predicament in the first place.
The Zing!Bonger
|
|
|
|
|
ouflyboy9
Mar 22, 2004, 4:15 PM
Post #3 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 103
|
Good Point bonger, but only my bro could make that decision. It's sounds like you either don't like your little brother or do not have one. But it's hard to say they were making mistakes. Yes they made some poor decisions, but decisions need to be made. How were they to know it was a mistake? no one had ever been where they were. I guess only in hindsight you could see that a decision turned out to be a mistake!!
|
|
|
|
|
justin
Mar 22, 2004, 4:18 PM
Post #4 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2003
Posts: 196
|
I think this one's been hashed about a bit but there was no point in them both going over. In hindsight, it would have been a good idea to look in the crevass. Perhaps he was expecting to see his friends mangled corpse in there.
|
|
|
|
|
straightedgeteen
Mar 22, 2004, 4:19 PM
Post #5 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 8, 2002
Posts: 367
|
I saw this with my climbing partner, we both decided we would have done it, it must have been hard to do but i would have done it becuase he went above and beyond what he was suposed to do,
And the Burning of the Clothes was something that i prolly would have done too because my climbing partner and I are close and it would have been tough.
This movie is also very climber oriented .... espically with the death comments, i find climbers talk alot about death atleast i do.
|
|
|
|
|
cantbuymefriends
Mar 22, 2004, 4:19 PM
Post #6 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2003
Posts: 670
|
As you say yourself, decisions need to be made, and how were they to know it was a mistake?
So, what's your point with trying to judge whether the decision was right or wrong, from the security and comfort of your computer chair?
|
|
|
|
|
tomchaps
Mar 22, 2004, 4:21 PM
Post #7 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2004
Posts: 22
|
Well, Joe readily admits that they made a few elemental and avoidable mistakes, like not bringing along enough fuel to make water, which forced them to keep going when they should have spent another night in a snow cave, for example.
And, Simon's decision was obviously the correct one. The amazing thing is that he realized it, since it is hard to conceive of a situation where cutting the rope could be the right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
climbjs
Mar 22, 2004, 4:23 PM
Post #8 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2002
Posts: 379
|
In reply to: As you say yourself, decisions need to be made, and how were they to know it was a mistake? So, what's your point with trying to judge whether the decision was right or wrong, from the security and comfort of your computer chair?
Nicely put. The trouble here is that who knows what we would do in that situation? Unless we're there, in their condition, having suffered the same setbacks (mildly put) and dilemas that Joe & Simon did, it is impossible to say. We can make moral judgements about what happened, but morality and reality are different. They both did what they did and had to do.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 22, 2004, 4:39 PM
Post #9 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
there is never a situation in which you should cut the rope.
|
|
|
|
|
ouflyboy9
Mar 22, 2004, 4:43 PM
Post #10 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 103
|
I never said the decision Simon made was right or wrong, and I pass no judgement on his decision. Just like climbjs said, I would have to be put in that situation before I would really know what I would do. I respect Joe for standing beside Simon's decision. I was just wondering what other climbers thought on the decision. I didn't think I was opening the door to have my own morals questioned!!
|
|
|
|
|
hikerken
Mar 22, 2004, 4:47 PM
Post #11 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2003
Posts: 145
|
why do you say that? Just trolling? :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 22, 2004, 4:59 PM
Post #12 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
cutting the rope should not even be an option. simon should have lowered/slipped down the slope as far as he could and gotten joe to the ground. he should have tried to save his partner as much as he could.
cutting the rope was a decision made out of fear for his own life.
|
|
|
|
|
robgordon
Mar 22, 2004, 5:04 PM
Post #13 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2003
Posts: 543
|
did anyone else feel like they were watching Wallace and Gromett every time Simon started talking?
|
|
|
|
|
studuk2000
Mar 22, 2004, 9:11 PM
Post #14 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 38
|
the way i see it is that simon had two choices, one life or two, the fact that it was his own wasn't really that important. i know that he made the right decision and if i had been on the wrong end of that rope i would want my partner to make that decision. admittedly i would only want them to cut the rope if they had no other options but it seems pretty pointless sacrificing their own life with mine just because they didnt want to cut the rope.
in the cold light of day it does seem really cold and callous but extreme situations call for extreme measures and they didnt have the luxury of hindsight!
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Mar 22, 2004, 9:32 PM
Post #15 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
In reply to: I was wondering how many of you agreed or disagreed with Simon's decision. I'm still on the fence about it. However, I do most of my climbing with my little bro and I don't think that I could have done it.
I read the book a long time ago. And all of Simpson's subsequent books. Waiting for it to arrive in Cheyenne (or here) so I can go see the movie.
All (I cannot stress that enough) of my safety training has been under a triage assumption. Minimize risk. That is, if the rescuer will likely get killed during the rescue, its probably not worth it. Moreover, Yates knew full well that there was no way to help Simpson at that point. He lacked the gear to pull him back up and there was nowhere to lower Simpson to. But I suppose yes, we can second guess the decision of one man some dozen years after the fact, from the comfort of our computer chairs, claiming "I would do this, or I would do that" but until you are put in a true life and death situation, you will never truly know will you? In such a situation, you will (and this much is for certain) rely on your experience, your training, your foresight, and your will power (or lack thereof) and then you will see what will be done.
|
|
|
|
|
slablizard
Mar 22, 2004, 9:58 PM
Post #16 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558
|
In reply to: cutting the rope should not even be an option. simon should have lowered/slipped down the slope as far as he could and gotten joe to the ground. he should have tried to save his partner as much as he could. cutting the rope was a decision made out of fear for his own life.
Exactly what I was thinking.
I wasn't there thoug.
|
|
|
|
|
hikerken
Mar 23, 2004, 3:45 AM
Post #17 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2003
Posts: 145
|
In reply to: cutting the rope should not even be an option. simon should have lowered/slipped down the slope as far as he could and gotten joe to the ground. he should have tried to save his partner as much as he could. cutting the rope was a decision made out of fear for his own life.
This is an amazing assertion. I can only assume, by this statement that you have no significant mountaineering experience, certainly not in steep snow. That being the case, I could understand why you would think that this might be possible.
He had ALREADY lowered Joe as far as he could. They could not communicate, they were in a major storm.
"slipping down the slope" They were on a very steep snowfield, the snow was the consistancy of powdered sugar, and there was a lot of it. There would have been no way to arrest/control the slide with an axe, and once the two got sliding, there would have been no way to stop. Remember that with NO movement, and with a dug-out position, Simon could not maintain position.
There were TWO people there, and neither of them thinks that there was another reasonable option.
|
|
|
|
|
jefferson
Mar 23, 2004, 3:49 AM
Post #18 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2003
Posts: 37
|
The guy who's rope was cut and had to drag himself 7 miles across an ice-field thought the decision was the right one...'nuff said!
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
Mar 23, 2004, 4:10 AM
Post #19 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
That whole situations was incredible, and I have no right to decide whether or not the actions taken were the best at the time, HOWEVER...
It is quite clear in hindsight that if the rope had not been cut, both of those climbers probably wouldn't be here today... teathered together, Simon's fall would have been twice that of Joe's, consequently he would probably have pulled Joe the rest of the way down as he flew into the crevasse... and who knows how far that would have been? I'm willing to bet they'd both be dead today if Simon had not cut the rope. They both had another chance at life as a result...
|
|
|
|
|
truffalatree
Mar 23, 2004, 4:24 AM
Post #20 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2002
Posts: 32
|
Sitting in a movie theater, in a warm and cozy environment, with the prospects of sleeping in a warm bed later that night might skew one's judgement but I think that we all agree that no one was there, no one could make that decision but simon.
I think that the reality and the results speak for themselves. In the end, it is a stoic and epic tale about two men who come down from a mountain that they, at one point believed, they would never leave. They both lived. I think that says it all.
Had Simon chose differently, or had either of them made different decisions earlier on, things may have been different. but it is clear that with the decision he made, they both lived. With a different decision, we may have never heard their story and perhaps we would all have to find something different to ponder as we stare at our screens, because neither would have survived.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingnurse
Mar 23, 2004, 4:29 AM
Post #21 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2003
Posts: 420
|
If you are willing to hold onto moral absolutes like "never cut the rope" under any and all circumstances you should do us all a favor and jump into a crevasse.
There are exceptions to every rule. Failure to see this is (at least in my opinion) a MAJOR character flaw. This sounds weird, but I don't think I'd want to tie into a rope with someone who was not willing to cut it if the situation arose....
That said, if we are hanging from 3 bomber cam placements on a nice warm day out cragging on desert sandstone... You damn well better not cut the rope on me! But that's a whole other movie. :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Mar 23, 2004, 4:40 AM
Post #22 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
having been dragged down a few steep mountain slopes on the end of a rope, I can safely say that the decision was correct given the situation. I would also agree that it sounds as though Grayghost has no mountaineering experience at all, otherwise he would know that mountains are never as safe or predictable as roadside sport climbs, and that situations in which climbers have to make those "all for one or one for all" kinds of decisions do come up on rare occasion. I've had friends who've died in the mountains, who if they had been able to cut themselves free of their falling party, would still be alive today. Mountain accidents are seldom predictable, and a mountain climber seldom falls on a "bombproof" anchor. Snow anchors are pretty sketchy, not like rock anchors; and more often than not, a fall will endanger more than just the person falling, but everyone on the rope.
|
|
|
|
|
jookyhead
Mar 23, 2004, 4:52 AM
Post #23 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2003
Posts: 667
|
In reply to: cutting the rope should not even be an option. simon should have lowered/slipped down the slope as far as he could and gotten joe to the ground. he should have tried to save his partner as much as he could. cutting the rope was a decision made out of fear for his own life.
He did try to save his partner as much as he could could. And yes, obviously, he also did cut the rope for fear for his own life. I dare say you need to leave the gym, get some training/common sense, and then possibly get yourself out on the side of a mountain and see what it's really like.
|
|
|
|
|
fenix83
Moderator
Mar 23, 2004, 5:07 AM
Post #24 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2004
Posts: 2397
|
This is somewhat reminiscient of the situation that gave way to the Alive book/movie. On the one hand you have some of the most deeply ingrained moral/ethical standards (cutting the rope/eating human flesh) and on the other a certain death situation... No one can really say what they would do unless they were actually in that situation.
I think it is a lot more valuable to analyze what they might have done differently (their mistakes, if you choose to call them that). not to judge them, but to learn from tham and avoid them in the future. We also need to learn from what they did right, and in my opinion the single most important factor in their survival was the fact that they were simply not willing to die.
Another thing I find very interesting is that if I remember correctly Joe said he would have cut Simon loose too, but he is not sure if he would hae been able to cut himself off if he had the only knife, even if he thought that was the right thing to do. Interesting insight into the human mind; this unrelenting desire to live kept him alive in the end, but might have killed both of them if he had the only knife...
JMHO
|
|
|
|
|
rickvena
Mar 23, 2004, 5:12 AM
Post #25 of 59
(16050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 22, 2004
Posts: 34
|
I'm amazed we are all so obsessed with the "to cut or not to cut" over-discussed concept. More interesting, from the film at least, was Joe's inability to explain what made him go on. So many times we hear people say that an "epic" experience has taught them about their limits; Joe seemed to imply that he learned no such lesson. Instead, he implied that the person he used to be died on that mountain.
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Mar 23, 2004, 6:09 AM
Post #26 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
You know. I'm going to say that unless you have been on a mountain in serious danger and were put into a similar sitution, you really have no grounds to even speculate on the decision made by Yates.
There's a big diference between climbing crags, and climbing mountains. I think that this lost on the new climbing generation.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 23, 2004, 6:31 PM
Post #27 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
HIKERken, as a highly experienced mountaineer I am speaking from my direct experiences in the mountains. I have rescued my partner from crevaces even though it could have meant my own life. Rather than just cutting the rope and leaving him to die I rappelled off of horribly sketchy snow stakes and got him out of there. The option of cutting the rope breaks the bond between climbing partners so that one partner now has the power to end the others life. When you rope-up in the big mountains you are signing a contract with your partner to do all that you can to save his life. Never assume.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 23, 2004, 6:50 PM
Post #28 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: You know. I'm going to say that unless you have been on a mountain in serious danger and were put into a similar sitution, you really have no grounds to even speculate on the decision made by Yates.
When those two chose to tell their story to the world, they gave every one of us ample grounds to discuss their decision ad infinitum. Nothing else really needs to be said about that, but as usual I can resist elaboration.
To say we can't talk about or question their decisions simply because we have not put ourselves in a similar situation means we can't learn from the mistakes of others. As humans we have learned to project, to pretend. It allows us to model our possible reactions and this process is critical component to human thinking. We do it because that is what it is to be aware... conscious of one's own death and taking steps to circumvent it.
I admire the honesty and the courage of their writing. But I sometimes notice people putting these two climbers on a pedestal, that perhaps through suffering and deprivation they are now above it all.
They were just a couple of blokes who got WAY in over their heads, fucked up bad and then one partner made the decision to survive at the expense of the other. That both of them made it out is a great story, but it is by no means an example of how climbers should conduct themselves in the mountains.
Ask yourselves this... would you climb a hard, committing and dangerous mountaineering route with Joe Simpson?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
hikerken
Mar 24, 2004, 7:42 AM
Post #29 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2003
Posts: 145
|
In reply to: HIKERken, as a highly experienced mountaineer I am speaking from my direct experiences in the mountains. I have rescued my partner from crevaces even though it could have meant my own life. Rather than just cutting the rope and leaving him to die I rappelled off of horribly sketchy snow stakes and got him out of there. The option of cutting the rope breaks the bond between climbing partners so that one partner now has the power to end the others life. When you rope-up in the big mountains you are signing a contract with your partner to do all that you can to save his life. Never assume.
Never Assume? Ok. Lets say, then, that your assumption that one should NEVER cut the rope is wrong.
In fact, in this case, it WAS wrong. In THIS case, cutting the rope, with near certainty, would have resulted in both climbers dying. Your approach would have killed them. Had we known about it, we would all have spent years screaming at Yates for being such an idiot for, essentially, killing himself.
So, instead of your ridiculous rescue scenarios, give us your way of getting out of their situation: Not the use of non-existant extra ropes....not the use of non-existant stakes, not calling down the mother ship.....either tell us how, or say that your best way is a two person death dive. It sounds like you neither read the book or saw the movie.
It is now on YOU to say, not what they should not have done, but with your vast mountaineering experience, what they should have done, instead.
|
|
|
|
|
erdeneruc
Mar 24, 2004, 8:44 AM
Post #30 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 56
|
In reply to: It is now on YOU to say, not what they should not have done, but with your vast mountaineering experience, what they should have done, instead.
I will bite: see from another thread...
Erden.
|
|
|
|
|
skiorclimb
Mar 24, 2004, 11:24 AM
Post #31 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 169
|
I would say, and I don't have alot of mountinering expirience, that there is a lesson to be learned from this story. One thing that could have made a big difference in their situation is if Joe had tied prusiks before needing them. Mountineering 101 has tought us all that prusiks should be tied and ready to go if traveling over crevased glaciers. It dosn't seem to be a great leap to say that they should be tied and ready to go if you are lowering on unformiliure terain. I would not have thought of it myself, but after haveing the benefit of knowing their story I hope I would think about that now. If Joe had been able to tie the prusiks, he tried and failled, their might have been a very different outcome.
Don't bother telling me about my spelling, I am aware.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 24, 2004, 4:25 PM
Post #32 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
HIKERken, you obviously have never passed a knot while on a free hanging rappel so it would be pointless for me to try to explain it to you. LOOK IT UP. All Simon had to do was to pass the knot and lower Joe as far as he could, if Joe was not touching the glacier by then Simon would slip down the slope untill Joe touched down. Once Joe was down he would untie the rope and Simon would make a double rope rappel or even a single rope rappel and leave the rope fixed fixed. This is how they should have gotten out of their situation. As a side note, I have read the book and seen the movie.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 24, 2004, 4:29 PM
Post #33 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
"In THIS case, cutting the rope, with near certainty, would have resulted in both climbers dying." -HIKERken
uh, okay KEN, and you are trying to convince us they made the right decision?
|
|
|
|
|
hikerken
Mar 24, 2004, 4:45 PM
Post #34 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2003
Posts: 145
|
In reply to: HIKERken, you obviously have never passed a knot while on a free hanging rappel so it would be pointless for me to try to explain it to you. LOOK IT UP. All Simon had to do was to pass the knot and lower Joe as far as he could, if Joe was not touching the glacier by then Simon would slip down the slope untill Joe touched down. Once Joe was down he would untie the rope and Simon would make a double rope rappel or even a single rope rappel and leave the rope fixed fixed. This is how they should have gotten out of their situation. As a side note, I have read the book and seen the movie.
An interesting concept. Passing the knot. That would seem to indicate that Simon Yates should have tied their third rope to the end of the two ropes he was using to lower Joe.
Only problem is, if you had read the book, or seen the movie, *and paid attention*, instead of making *assumptions*, you would have realized that they only had TWO ropes, both being used to lower Joe, and thus, there was nothing to tie, creating a knot, to be passed. Nice try, but giving solutions that involve gear they didn't have, doesn't really sound reasonable.
Indeed, they were using two ropes, knoted together, and had to pass the knot on each lowering....they had already done that on this pitch, Yates had a few feet of rope left, and that was it.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. BUT if you take the position that Yates should have "done something else", then it is on YOU to say what that something was. If you cannot come up with something specific, then this is a learning experience for you.
Skiorclimb, that is an interesting thought about the prussiks. Whether he could have climbed them with his shattered leg, I question, but this guy sure did a lot of things I'd not thought possible. And the prussiks was sure what he thought of trying, once he was hanging. Good thought
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 24, 2004, 5:40 PM
Post #35 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
So both ropes were payed out. Joe had about 80 ft. to the ground. If Simon had 80 ft. to the edge of the ice cliff then he could have slipped down the slope until Joe was on the ground and then rappelled.
'nuf said.
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Mar 24, 2004, 6:09 PM
Post #36 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: I'm willing to bet they'd both be dead today if Simon had not cut the rope. They both had another chance at life as a result...
I agree, aside from a couple of other things, this is what I walked away feeling...and, as I remember, there were 2 ropes, Joe hanging in the air with no way of communicating, and Simon, with no good purchase on the ever deepening snow, about to slide over the edge; There was absolutely no other way out of the situation and have at least one survive.
All in all, a great movie! Looking foward to it coming out on DVD.
|
|
|
|
|
sancho
Mar 24, 2004, 6:09 PM
Post #37 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 70
|
Grayhghost, either you are a troll or an idiot. What ever the case may be, both are annoying!
Really, your comprehension level is quite dismal!
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 24, 2004, 6:24 PM
Post #38 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
why do you say that SANCHO?
you are too quick to agree with the decisions the Simon made because both of them got out of it alive. This would be a very different discusion if Joe ended up dying (maybe found dead on his way to crawling out towards the road)
If Simon explained what he did to end the life of his partner you would be tearing into him.
|
|
|
|
|
sancho
Mar 24, 2004, 6:35 PM
Post #39 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 70
|
Because, Grayhghost, you clearly do not understand what happened.
"Pass the knot" you say? Excuse me, genius, but Simon had no knot to pass. He was not tied in to anything. Simon's anchor consisted of a depression dug in the steep, loose, snowy slope and that is the best he could do, given their situation...
Read the book, watch the movie, but pay attention this time.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 24, 2004, 6:37 PM
Post #40 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: This would be a very different discusion if Joe ended up dying
Well, there wouldn't BE a discussion if he died. There wouldn't be a book or a movie. Just a climber with a huge monkey on his back.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
skiorclimb
Mar 24, 2004, 7:48 PM
Post #41 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 169
|
Acorrding to the book there was a knot to pass. Wheather it could have been done without having an appropriate anchor I seriously would doubt.
I looked down at the slack rope being fed through the belay plate. Twenty feet below I spotted the knot coming steadily twoards me. I began swearing, trying to urge Joe to touch down on to something solid. At ten feet I stopped lowering. The Pressure on the rope hadn't changed.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 24, 2004, 8:09 PM
Post #42 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
thank you SKIORCLIMB for referencing that. It just cements my feelings that HIKERken and SANCHO are in this more to just argue and throw mud than to have a discussion. I CLEARLY UNDERDERSTAND the situation and offer a logical resolution in which both partners share the responsibility of their actions.
SANCHO and HIKERken need to re-read the book and get their facts straight before they go shooting of their mouths.
Humans are not infalable, we can question their judgment.
Dingus, many expeditions have been "audited" by the American Alpine Club after members of the expedition died under less than transparent circumstances. So there is a discussion when partners do not come back alive.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Mar 24, 2004, 8:51 PM
Post #43 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: cutting the rope should not even be an option. simon should have lowered/slipped down the slope as far as he could and gotten joe to the ground. he should have tried to save his partner as much as he could. cutting the rope was a decision made out of fear for his own life.
Massive troll. 2 deaths is not better than 1 death. What Simon did was eminently justifiable given the situation, and it astounds me that anyone would contest this. What's more, Simon's decision ended up netting 0 deaths -- both he and Joe survived. If he had continued to lower they might well have both died of kidney failure (dehydration) or frostbite during the descent.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 24, 2004, 8:52 PM
Post #44 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Dingus, many expeditions have been "audited" by the American Alpine Club after members of the expedition died under less than transparent circumstances. So there is a discussion when partners do not come back alive.
Dude
I was just having some fun. The reason WE (you, I, the internet, the man in the moon) know anything at all about what happened to this British team is the survivor wrote a popular and riveting account about it. In that account we became privy to the intimate details of what happened from their perspectives. So we discuss and debate their decisions.
This is an old discussion because of the book. Its a new discussion because of the movie. And none of us would be having it if Simpson had died. No Simpson, no book.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
ajoys
Mar 24, 2004, 9:05 PM
Post #45 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2002
Posts: 45
|
In reply to: Acorrding to the book there was a knot to pass. Wheather it could have been done without having an appropriate anchor I seriously would doubt. I looked down at the slack rope being fed through the belay plate. Twenty feet below I spotted the knot coming steadily twoards me. I began swearing, trying to urge Joe to touch down on to something solid. At ten feet I stopped lowering. The Pressure on the rope hadn't changed.
I haven't read the book or seen the movie but he cut the rope when he had an entire rope length to go if he would of only passed the knot?
If this is what happened then why didn't he just pass the knot and continue lowering?
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Mar 24, 2004, 9:20 PM
Post #46 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
a new perspective yields the correct answer!
|
|
|
|
|
skiorclimb
Mar 24, 2004, 10:41 PM
Post #48 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 169
|
He didn't pass the knot for the same reason Joe droped his prusik cord, they were both freezing to death. Without an anchor, or even a good stance, And with fingers like wood their was nothing that he could have done. Knowing how to do something and actualy doing it with frozen fingers, while sitting on a colapsing death perch are totally diferent.
|
|
|
|
|
sglat
Mar 24, 2004, 11:14 PM
Post #49 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 80
|
That's one of those things that none of us can understand; primarily because none of us were there. It's kinda like...well, no one else can understand what it was like in regard to the emotions and everything else. I'm not saying that it's not documented. It's that we cant grasp it. I'm not trying to shoot down your post or anything. things like that happen to the best.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 24, 2004, 11:36 PM
Post #50 of 59
(6757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: That's one of those things that none of us can understand; primarily because none of us were there. It's kinda like...well, no one else can understand what it was like in regard to the emotions and everything else. I'm not saying that it's not documented. It's that we cant grasp it. I'm not trying to shoot down your post or anything. things like that happen to the best.
I like the turn of this discussion. I'm not so interested in good/bad analysis. As you say, what happened happened.
But to say we can't understand it, that we can't grasp it, because we weren't there and didn't experience it, nulifies 5000 plus years of written language.
We can experience things vicariously through words. That is their purpose after all.
Math is the language of logic. Art is the language of emotion. Words are one of the tools of art. Combined they constitute our ability to convey thoughts, emotions and experiences.
"I saw big deer 3 days hike north from here!" For the amount of space taken up by those words, that is an incredible amount of information. Experience, emotion and logic, all in once sentence. Part of the excitement, a facimille yes, but a part of it nonetheless, is transferred from the reporter to the listener. And the listener reacts both logically and emotionally.
Joe Simpson wrote an incredibly powerful account of his survival. If you have read the book you do have a great deal of information at your disposal; experience, emotion and logic.
It's art when you come right down to it. He painted an incredibly vivid picture with photos and words and hundreds of years from now people will be able to read that book and understand in large part what happened.
That's not to say, my friend, what went unsaid. He painted the picture he thought he wanted us to see. Who knows what dark thoughts have haunted these two all these years later...
Revel in our language! A big part of the brain is dedicated to it. It's a great book.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
fenix83
Moderator
Mar 25, 2004, 12:22 AM
Post #51 of 59
(6059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2004
Posts: 2397
|
Although I agree with your basic statement that art, and artistically utilized language can allow us to vicariously relive another persons experiences, I think you are giving words more power than they actually have. The perfect example of this on a different scale is the inability of limbers to accurately describe the emotions/rush of peaking a hard climb, or just how scared you were the first time a piece of pro you placed got torn off the wall in a whipper. Humans have the ability to convey emotion through their words, but I think it is naive to presume that we can grasp the full range of emotions/thought processes/subconscious responses of an experience merely by reading about it. No matter how good the writing, or how thorough the description you will never know the reality of an experience, not only because the picture painted is incomplete at best, but because the same event is experienced very differently by different people. Who knows what was actually going through Simon’s head at that moment; and even if we could know for sure it would not be what would go through your head or mine in the same situation.
All of this is not to say there is no value in the experiences transferred through language and art, just that their ability to transport us there is limited not only by the constraints of the author’s ability, but by the constraints of language as a logical tool to describe emotions, which are often, for lack of a better word, illogical; and by the subjectivity with which different individuals perceive the same events.
JMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
ajoys
Mar 25, 2004, 2:39 AM
Post #52 of 59
(6059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2002
Posts: 45
|
In reply to: He didn't pass the knot for the same reason Joe droped his prusik cord, they were both freezing to death. Without an anchor, or even a good stance, And with fingers like wood their was nothing that he could have done. Knowing how to do something and actualy doing it with frozen fingers, while sitting on a colapsing death perch are totally diferent.
Did he even try or did he just make a decision based on his own experience and evaluation of the situation that it wasn't possible or was he just so scared that he refused to try and no longer cared about his partners life? I really need to go see the movie and read the book.
|
|
|
|
|
hikerken
Mar 25, 2004, 6:40 AM
Post #53 of 59
(6059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2003
Posts: 145
|
In reply to: Acorrding to the book there was a knot to pass. Wheather it could have been done without having an appropriate anchor I seriously would doubt. I looked down at the slack rope being fed through the belay plate. Twenty feet below I spotted the knot coming steadily twoards me. I began swearing, trying to urge Joe to touch down on to something solid. At ten feet I stopped lowering. The Pressure on the rope hadn't changed.
You know...you are right, about this. The situation was that Yates was in the middle (approx) of the two ropes tied together. He had a whole additional rope below (above) the knot. I concede that passing the knot was the crux.
However, as I read the passage following what you've quoted, I see him struggling with that exact issue....how to pass the knot. The problem was that Joe was supposed to take his weight off the rope, so that Yates could pass the knot and continue lowering, as they had done 9 times previously.
As he describes fairly well, he could not close his hand. His description of his thoughts about escaping the belay do not include description of prussiks, which makes me think that he may not have had them. Joe tries to use them, below, but drops one, and cannot get one attached, because his hands are so impared.
I agree with your thought about how to deal with the situation, ideally. Problem is, I don't think Yates was physically capable, or equipped to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
xprompt
Mar 28, 2004, 1:59 AM
Post #54 of 59
(6059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 10, 2004
Posts: 159
|
i agree with simons decision....
yet again i disagree.
Hope i helped you!!!
|
|
|
|
|
goob3r
Mar 6, 2006, 8:16 AM
Post #55 of 59
(6059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2006
Posts: 219
|
In reply to: did anyone else feel like they were watching Wallace and Gromett every time Simon started talking?
you know.. it may have just been a coincidence but I did start craving cheese at one point.
Awesome movie.
I'm not going to judge one way or another on this dumb debate. You honestly can't...and therefore shouldn't until you find yourself in the same situation.
|
|
|
|
|
kricir
Mar 6, 2006, 9:25 AM
Post #56 of 59
(6059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2005
Posts: 434
|
I think that we must remember the situation they were in. With the benefit of hindsight, life and death decisions can easily be over analyzed, but come on, they were alpine climbing, on a big, mean, mother of a mountain at that. When you go for a climb like that, you give up control of the situation to your surroundings. your options are completely dependent on your current situation. The future is completely uncertain at all times. Accidents like theirs provide many lessons that others can use in the future. My thoughts on what those lessons are as follows:
In a rescue lower situation like that one, have the injured climber pre attach prussics / ascenders (like in glacier travel) in case they have to climb back up.
try not to lower off of something you cant see down, especially late in the day, and if you have no anchor.
If you fall, even a short distance, have your knees slightly bent (If Joe’s knees were bent, I think he would of been uninjured by his fall) It may not be possible to make a decision that fast, so it is better to program the reaction to bend your knees in a fall into your subconscious, so you just do it. I almost broke both my ankles in a trad fall, had my knees been bent it would have just been like any other safe fall.
Always carry a knife and be able to get to it to cut out of the system. Obviously this is last resort. Think of the disaster on Mt Hood (the one with the helicopter crash). It was like vertical limit, a falling party got tangled up in other parties ropes, dragging every one off. If only those innocent parties could of cut the ropes and self arrested, it wouldn't of been so bad. (On some routes, you need to be ready to dodge falling noobs)
don’t climb dangerous, long, and difficult routes with out a partner that you deeply trust on every level. Just like Joe said, there are times in climbing when you are solely dependent on your partner.
I am no one to judge what Simon did, but I agree that he made the right choice giving the circumstance he was in. Its a hell of a story they have, In my opinion, not only one of the greatest survival stories in climbing, but in all of human history as well.
|
|
|
|
|
azrockclimber
Mar 6, 2006, 1:47 PM
Post #57 of 59
(6059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 666
|
In reply to: You know. I'm going to say that unless you have been on a mountain in serious danger and were put into a similar sitution, you really have no grounds to even speculate on the decision made by Yates. There's a big diference between climbing crags, and climbing mountains. I think that this lost on the new climbing generation.
I agree that there is a HUGE difference..However,
I have no big mountain experience and it seems quite clear to me that the option that he chose was the only one left to him. Any other course of action seemed, to me, to be an instant death sentence.
Is this type of speculation OK? I don't need big mountain experience to know what sounds like a fairly sound decision given the unimaginable conditions.... super loose snow, serious ass storm, scary "belay" seat, majorly dehydrated, zero communication... I felt like I was reading a nightmare.
Everyone has a right to speculate. They may just be seriously wrong in the eyes of experienced mountaineers.
JMHO
|
|
|
|
|
tgreene
Mar 6, 2006, 2:52 PM
Post #58 of 59
(6059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267
|
1) It was dark without the ability to see or hear anything, and they were lost in unchartered terrain.
2) Simon had held Joe's dead weight for several hours already, w/o any movement or even the slightest response that could indicate Joe was anything other than dead.
3) Simon was in fact being pulled towards the lip.
4) It was impossible to know whether Joe was 3 feet off the ground, or 3000 feet. (see #1)
5) If Simon had passed the knot, then had to cut away, he would have been left high atop a ledge, with no rope and no way down. Even if Joe had still been able to crawl back as he did, by the time he returned, Simon would have certainly been dead.
|
|
|
|
|
heiko
Mar 6, 2006, 3:19 PM
Post #59 of 59
(6059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2005
Posts: 1505
|
You should have shown more care and revived this thread exactly two years after the last post, not just in the same month. Sloppy work. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
