Forums: Climbing Information: Injury Treatment and Prevention:
Gunks Accident(s) this weekend?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Injury Treatment and Prevention

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All


cchas


Aug 3, 2007, 7:27 AM
Post #51 of 76 (4073 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 9, 2005
Posts: 344

Re: [dalguard] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've seen numbers as high as 30-50 accidents a year, but I need to confirm this. A few high profile climbers have been hurt (most notably Dick Williams while taking wingers during a photo-shoot, but the statistics I've seen are a vast majority of the injuries are on the 5.4 to 5.8 climbs that are G/PG.


Partner rgold


Aug 3, 2007, 9:33 AM
Post #52 of 76 (4031 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804

Re: [cchas] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I too have heard the more climber days than Yosemite claim. And it wouldn't be surprising, if you think about the population concentration within, say, four hours of the Gunks, compared to the population densities surrounding many other areas. Moreover, the Gunks is one of a relatively small number of areas that have a full complement of easy and moderate climbs. (Fuhgettaboutit in Yosemite; there's hardly anything anyone would want to do less than 5.7.) For example, there's a thread going on at Gunks.com on breaking into 5.6. That thread couldn't happen in many areas. So not only are there far more attractive easy and moderate climbs than you can find almost anywhere else in the US, but the availability of these climbs, as well as drawing inexperienced and mid-level climbers, also allows for the phenomenon of the long-term occasional climber who never progresses beyond mid-fifth class.

Add to this the following facts. First, climbs in the Gunks are steep. Even the easy climbs are nearly vertical. If you fall, you won't be sliding down a slab or a trough. Second, as Chas noted, protection opportunities are not continuous as they are in a crack-climbing environment, and I would add that Gunks protection tends to come from the smaller part of the rack, which raises the probability of failures for all climbers, regardless of experience. Third, there are a lot of features to hit on your way down, and this is more true on the easier climbs. Finally, the easy climbs in the Gunks tend to be harder than easy climbs elsewhere. 5.2's and 5.3's can have real moves that are not no-brainers.

These features are somewhat unique to the Gunks. To this, add the general influence of sport and gym climbing, which provide a continual desensitization to the natural reluctance to fall, a go-for-it attitude that does not to include retreat clues or strategies, a sense that all protection is bombproof, and a level of climbing ability that may far exceed the corresponding level of protection competence.

In spite of all this, my sense is that most Gunks accidents are relatively minor. The nature of the area itself contributes to the fact that everyone knows when an ambulance shows up. Furthermore, the easy availability of a professional rescue and the large number of climbers typically around to call one in mean that accidents that might have been handled in the field by a party in another area end up in the stat book in the Gunks. These two facts by themselves might explain the impression that the Gunks have a lot of accidents.

Finally, it is not at all clear, in spite of all my comments above, that accidents are happening primarily to inexperienced climbers. There have been a number of accidents on 5.10's in the past few years, including some to professional guides.


majid_sabet


Aug 3, 2007, 11:42 AM
Post #53 of 76 (3993 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8390

Re: [cchas] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cchas wrote:
I've seen numbers as high as 30-50 accidents a year, but I need to confirm this. A few high profile climbers have been hurt (most notably Dick Williams while taking wingers during a photo-shoot, but the statistics I've seen are a vast majority of the injuries are on the 5.4 to 5.8 climbs that are G/PG.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I am guessing;
most of these accidents were

1-Majority of them were gym climbers who wanted to try trad
2- During lead or it was caused by a leader fall.
3- Climbers had less than 2 years of outdoor climbing experience (5.8 or less)
4- Most accidents were involved with multiple protection failures
5- Inexperienced belayer

I am very interested to know if #1 and #3 are accurate.


(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Aug 3, 2007, 1:07 PM)


cchas


Aug 3, 2007, 1:04 PM
Post #54 of 76 (3948 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 9, 2005
Posts: 344

Re: [majid_sabet] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
cchas wrote:
I've seen numbers as high as 30-50 accidents a year, but I need to confirm this. A few high profile climbers have been hurt (most notably Dick Williams while taking wingers during a photo-shoot, but the statistics I've seen are a vast majority of the injuries are on the 5.4 to 5.8 climbs that are G/PG.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I am guessing;
most of these accidents were

1-Majority of them were gym climbers who wanted to try trad
2- During lead or it was caused by a leader fall.
2- Climbers had less than 2 years of outdoor climbing experience (5.8 or less)
3- Most accidents were involved with multiple protection failures
4- Inexperienced belayer

I am very interested to know if #1 and #3 are accurate.

hey no fair,.... there are two number 2's. Try the first number two and 3 as being accurate from the statistics I've seen.


majid_sabet


Aug 3, 2007, 1:09 PM
Post #55 of 76 (3942 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8390

Re: [cchas] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cchas wrote:
majid_sabet wrote:
cchas wrote:
I've seen numbers as high as 30-50 accidents a year, but I need to confirm this. A few high profile climbers have been hurt (most notably Dick Williams while taking wingers during a photo-shoot, but the statistics I've seen are a vast majority of the injuries are on the 5.4 to 5.8 climbs that are G/PG.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I am guessing;
most of these accidents were

1-Majority of them were gym climbers who wanted to try trad
2- During lead or it was caused by a leader fall.
2- Climbers had less than 2 years of outdoor climbing experience (5.8 or less)
3- Most accidents were involved with multiple protection failures
4- Inexperienced belayer

I am very interested to know if #1 and #3 are accurate.

hey no fair,.... there are two number 2's. Try the first number two and 3 as being accurate from the statistics I've seen.

If #3 is one of them , what is their background ? where did they learn climbing from ?


burrito


Aug 3, 2007, 1:25 PM
Post #56 of 76 (3928 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 5, 2006
Posts: 108

Re: [majid_sabet] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:

Please correct me if I am wrong but I am guessing;
most of these accidents were

1-Majority of them were gym climbers who wanted to try trad
2- During lead or it was caused by a leader fall.
3- Climbers had less than 2 years of outdoor climbing experience (5.8 or less)
4- Most accidents were involved with multiple protection failures
5- Inexperienced belayer

I am very interested to know if #1 and #3 are accurate.

I think you're wrong. I don't know any of the climbers or anything about their outdoor experience, but you can tell just from reading the thread that two of the accidents did not involve "protection failures" -- the guy leading Minty clipped into one piece of frayed webbing, which broke when he weighted it, and the woman on Arrow (who was NOT leading) apparently just lost her grip and, because of some odd angles and rope stretch, hit a ledge.

I guess you could consider the Minty accident a pro failure (in a very, VERY basic sense), although not the kind I assume you're talking about, i.e., he didn't place a piece that then blew. He just made the mistake of not inspecting the webbing, and only clipping into one strand -- there are usually several at those tree belay/"rap" stations.

I kind of get the feeling you want to hear that these were total gumbies who never should have been out on the rock and who did dumb things that could have been avoided with proper training, but that just doesn't seem to be the case. Although the Minty accident was clearly purely human error, it says nothing about his level of experience; just his level of attention at that particular moment...

(edited for typo)

(This post was edited by burrito on Aug 3, 2007, 1:30 PM)


Partner rgold


Aug 3, 2007, 1:33 PM
Post #57 of 76 (3921 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804

Re: [cchas] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cchas wrote:
I've seen numbers as high as 30-50 accidents a year

From ANAM:

2004: 18 Ascending accidents with one fatality (on a 5.7), 5 rappelling accidents.

2005: 15 climbing accidents, all leader falls, 8 involving inadequate protection, 1 fatality. Average age, 35, most routes of moderate difficulty.

2006: 10 ascending accidents, 1 rappel accident, one downclimbing accident. 6 of the ascending accidents involved no or inadequate protection. Average age of climbers 37, average difficulty 5.6, average level of experience moderate to experienced.


majid_sabet


Aug 3, 2007, 2:36 PM
Post #58 of 76 (3883 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8390

Re: [rgold] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rgold wrote:
cchas wrote:
I've seen numbers as high as 30-50 accidents a year

From ANAM:

2004: 18 Ascending accidents with one fatality (on a 5.7), 5 rappelling accidents.

2005: 15 climbing accidents, all leader falls, 8 involving inadequate protection, 1 fatality. Average age, 35, most routes of moderate difficulty.

2006: 10 ascending accidents, 1 rappel accident, one downclimbing accident. 6 of the ascending accidents involved no or inadequate protection. Average age of climbers 37, average difficulty 5.6, average level of experience moderate to experienced.


FYI
The ANAM does not get all the reports nor publishes every one of them in their yearly book. Due to gov agencies red tape , some of the reports never makes to AAC. I know that for fact cause I work for such agencies and in many cases, we are not allowed to talk about such incidents to public.

Call it " on going investigation"


(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Aug 5, 2007, 4:20 PM)


rhunter


Aug 4, 2007, 8:54 AM
Post #59 of 76 (3829 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 24, 2006
Posts: 13

Re: [majid_sabet] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Well, In my case (fall on alphonse)
the ranger and I filled out an accident report which I was told would be passed on to ANAM.
For what it is worth here's my story: I've been leading trad for about 5 years, weekend warrior, not much talent, but I enjoy it. I'm pretty comfy on Gunks 5.6-7 and Alphonse was to be my first 5.8. My first mistake was to lead on double ropes for the first time, which added a bonus cluster factor I did not need. The second was poorly protecting the traverse on p2 (p1 for me as I was trying to lead the first two pitches as one, which contributed to a gear conserving mind set and this mistake). The last piece in the corner was a medium nut and then I had a 0 tcu in a horizontal about 6 feet into the traverse. I was pretty sweaty, so as I made the second move past the tcu I slipped off a hand hold and toppled. The fall must have pulled the tcu laterally out and then the nut up and out. The third piece, a 0.5 C4 held. The fall was about 30 feet. I'll spare the details of what my foot looked like, but then and now I was just happy that that was the only injury I obtained other than ego bruising.
I think my accident falls largely under the rubric of push the gear or the difficulty but not both. I don't really have double rope skills and I lack experience leading traverses longer than 6 feet or so. Hindsight being what it was I should have had these facts more clearly in mind before getting on alphonse.
I hope this helps people, and I'll attend to any advice or criticism offered. I made at least 2 mistakes I'm aware of and as a result I can't climb for 6 months, anything I can learn to avoid similar outcomes in future would be great.
Thanks again to everyone who helped out, though I am a bit embarrassed by my accident, the way so many people lent a hand made me proud to be a part of the gunks climbing community (and count my blessings that I fell here and not somewhere more isolated).

Cheers,
Richard


gblauer
Moderator

Aug 4, 2007, 8:59 AM
Post #60 of 76 (3826 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 3, 2002
Posts: 2824

Re: [rhunter] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Richard,
Thanks for posting the details. Mitch and I are thinking about getting some twins, I guess we'd better stick to the climbs we know while we are learning. I hope you are feeling better.
Gail

PS How's your other ankle? Everything ok?


Partner rgold


Aug 4, 2007, 12:26 PM
Post #61 of 76 (3817 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804

Re: [gblauer] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid sabet wrote:

The ANAM does not get all the reports nor publishes every one of them in their yearly book. Due to gov agencies red tape , some of the reports never makes to AAC. I know that for fact cause I work for such agencies and in many causes we are not allowed to talk about such incidents to public.

In the case of accidents in the Gunks, this is incorrect, since there are no government agencies involved. The Mohonk Preserve does the rescuing and reporting, and they report everything, even bouldering accidents, which I edited out of the statistics. If someone with a sprained ankle from a climb gets a ride in the ranger truck down the carriage road, the Preserve reports it. ANAM gets everything from the Gunks. It is rare that they publish even one complete accident report, but they do summarize the complete set of reports, and so I think the statistics they report are reasonably accurate.


rockclimbchar


Aug 4, 2007, 3:07 PM
Post #62 of 76 (3784 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 19, 2006
Posts: 17

Re: [rgold] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
as Chas noted, protection opportunities are not continuous as they are in a crack-climbing environment, and I would add that Gunks protection tends to come from the smaller part of the rack, which raises the probability of failures for all climbers, regardless of experience. Third, there are a lot of features to hit on your way down, and this is more true on the easier climbs. Finally, the easy climbs in the Gunks tend to be harder than easy climbs elsewhere. 5.2's and 5.3's can have real moves that are not no-brainers.

These features are somewhat unique to the Gunks.

I will vouch for that. I learned to trad climb at the 'Gunks and am quite familiar with the area. I am not a very experienced or talented trad leader but have climbed enough at the 'Gunks to be quite familiar with its attributes. It's "easy" and "moderate" climbs are definitely rated tough, frequently a 5.5 will have a 5.8 (or harder) move or two on it. One of the biggest contributors to possibly a higher rate of accidents is that the "easier" climbs are very "blocky", lots of ledges, big jutting corners/ features to fall on (definitely to break an ankle or two or three on) and the protection is inconsistent (a section of G placement and then a long run-out, followed by another G section followed by R and so on). And the 'Gunks can get very very crowded. I do what I can to avoid it on a weekend. It has tons of climbs yet you can easily have to wait in line to get on the route you want (even your third choice). With all that, I would say it could seem like the 'Gunks may have some contributing factors to accidents. The more difficult climbs actually tend to be safer to lead (if you know what you are doing) due to being generally safer to fall on. Don't get me wrong, I am not criticizing the 'Gunks. It is an excellent place to climb with excellent rock and a uniqueness all its own. It is beautiful there and you can't get much better than the approaches either. Why else would it get so much traffic?

It doesn't matter where you climb, there is always a risk. If one doesn't accept that than they should stay in the gym. (however, I did break my wrist bouldering in a gym, hmmmmm.......)

Seriously, It is good to read the details about these recent accidents. I know for me personally it gives some reminders of what to stay focused on and not forget to take into consideration while leading trad (and seconding). As for the injured, I am glad you will all heal. It sucks to be injured, I've been there before. I wish you a fast recovery and a fast return to climbing.

Peace.


kmc


Aug 4, 2007, 4:31 PM
Post #63 of 76 (3754 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2006
Posts: 252

Re: [rockclimbchar] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Rockclimbchar,

I agree with many of your points. Yes, the Gunks can be crowded, and gear may not be as straight forward, or as readily available as gear in other climbing areas or especially as on crack climbs. And easier climbs are usually not safe to fall on due to all of the blocky ledges.


But to say that a 5.5 route will have a 5.8 move or more on it is crazy. All of the routes at the Gunks are rated by the hardest move on the route, just like other climbing areas. Not based on a sum or average of all of the other moves. This is why the Gunks is home of so many "one move wonders". For instance, 5.10s that have one or two 5.10 moves followed by cruiser (in comparison) .7 or .8. In fact, most of the routes (of course there are exceptions) are not sustained at the grade they are rated.

Some say that ratings at the Gunks are stiffer than other areas, but you simply can't compare ratings of a sport crag to an area with as much history as a trad climbing meca like the gunks. Yes, Gunks ratings are harder than Rumney, but through my experience, Gunks ratings are no harder than the ratings in other traditional climbing areas, such as the Adirondacks or North Conway.

Feel free to disagree.


curt


Aug 4, 2007, 8:01 PM
Post #64 of 76 (3710 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [happiegrrrl] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

happiegrrrl wrote:
As Gail mentioned, I was at the "Arrow" accident.

I am fairly certain I've got this right. A partner in the climbing team who was managing the rescue before professionals got on the scene said:
- The second fell as she went over that roofish move at the beginning of pitch 2.
- She fell less than a body length, and hit the ledge.

With the leader at the top, that's a lot of rope out(stretch). Even with a taut belay, falling there would probably bring you back to the ledge, I'd think...

Not with enough force to cause a compound fracture, I wouldn't think. I've done Arrow a fair number of times--and IMO, there almost certainly had to be some sort of belayer error involved in this accident.

Curt


gunked


Aug 4, 2007, 8:36 PM
Post #65 of 76 (3699 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2002
Posts: 615

Re: [kmc] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kmc wrote:
Rockclimbchar,

I agree with many of your points. Yes, the Gunks can be crowded, and gear may not be as straight forward, or as readily available as gear in other climbing areas or especially as on crack climbs. And easier climbs are usually not safe to fall on due to all of the blocky ledges.


But to say that a 5.5 route will have a 5.8 move or more on it is crazy. All of the routes at the Gunks are rated by the hardest move on the route, just like other climbing areas. Not based on a sum or average of all of the other moves. This is why the Gunks is home of so many "one move wonders". For instance, 5.10s that have one or two 5.10 moves followed by cruiser (in comparison) .7 or .8. In fact, most of the routes (of course there are exceptions) are not sustained at the grade they are rated.

Some say that ratings at the Gunks are stiffer than other areas, but you simply can't compare ratings of a sport crag to an area with as much history as a trad climbing meca like the gunks. Yes, Gunks ratings are harder than Rumney, but through my experience, Gunks ratings are no harder than the ratings in other traditional climbing areas, such as the Adirondacks or North Conway.

Feel free to disagree.

Very Well! I disagree!Wink

I've climbed in areas all over the country and feel quite comfortable in saying that there are MANY routes which exceed the given rating when compared to most areas I've been to. There are quite a few factors involved including subjective opinion, but I think I've spoken with enough climbers about this to feel comfortable making this general statement. I've done a fair amount of routes that we're 'averaged out' as well.

As far as Eastern trad areas, the first ascentionists were often the same people and/or same time period and similar ethics and the grading, as a result, is "somewhat" similar.

-Jason


gunked


Aug 4, 2007, 8:39 PM
Post #66 of 76 (3698 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2002
Posts: 615

Re: [majid_sabet] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

majid_sabet wrote:
gunked wrote:
cchas wrote:
But how many accidents per year?

1, 2, many!

In the past year and a half, I have personally assisted in 5 Gunks rescues (those that required carry-outs). It's getting a little old!

I will say that I'm quite practiced though!

-Jason

Since you helped on a few of these , What are the common problems involved with these type accidents ?

Protection failures ?
Lack of experience ?
Belay error ?
others ?

I helped with the carryouts and sometimes assisted with the intake and immobilization. Any info gathered about reason of fall is hearsay and what I gathered from my own two eyes.

In other words, I'm not gonna be too much help on this one! Sorry.

-Jason


rockclimbchar


Aug 5, 2007, 9:05 AM
Post #67 of 76 (3678 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 19, 2006
Posts: 17

Re: [gunked] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

gunked wrote:
kmc wrote:
Rockclimbchar,

I agree with many of your points. Yes, the Gunks can be crowded, and gear may not be as straight forward, or as readily available as gear in other climbing areas or especially as on crack climbs. And easier climbs are usually not safe to fall on due to all of the blocky ledges.


But to say that a 5.5 route will have a 5.8 move or more on it is crazy. All of the routes at the Gunks are rated by the hardest move on the route, just like other climbing areas. Not based on a sum or average of all of the other moves. This is why the Gunks is home of so many "one move wonders". For instance, 5.10s that have one or two 5.10 moves followed by cruiser (in comparison) .7 or .8. In fact, most of the routes (of course there are exceptions) are not sustained at the grade they are rated.

Some say that ratings at the Gunks are stiffer than other areas, but you simply can't compare ratings of a sport crag to an area with as much history as a trad climbing meca like the gunks. Yes, Gunks ratings are harder than Rumney, but through my experience, Gunks ratings are no harder than the ratings in other traditional climbing areas, such as the Adirondacks or North Conway.

Feel free to disagree.

Very Well! I disagree!Wink

I've climbed in areas all over the country and feel quite comfortable in saying that there are MANY routes which exceed the given rating when compared to most areas I've been to. There are quite a few factors involved including subjective opinion, but I think I've spoken with enough climbers about this to feel comfortable making this general statement. I've done a fair amount of routes that we're 'averaged out' as well.

As far as Eastern trad areas, the first ascentionists were often the same people and/or same time period and similar ethics and the grading, as a result, is "somewhat" similar.

-Jason
Yeah, I disagree too.
But these are all opinions.
I have heard way too often that the 'Gunks ratings are sandbagged. I have lead 5.4's that involved pulling roofs. ???? Maybe I'm wrong but that doesn't seem like a 5.4 technique to me and that type of occurrence isn't on one isolated climb either. I haven't climbed in the western U.S. yet but I have climbed in several areas in the east so I am comparing the 'Gunks ratings to those areas' ratings including both sport and trad. However, ratings are definitely subjective, no doubt about it. Rumney, White Horse Ledge, Cathedral Ledge, New River Gorge, Red River Gorge all seem to use a similar method and considerations in determining ratings (again it is all so subjective). In my opinion (and I have heard many other climbers share this opinion) the 'Gunks and Seneca are rated similar to each other which is a bit different than the other eastern areas I mentioned. (This of course is a generalization taking in account a large quantity of climbs within a specific destination.) It's just that I have encountered an overwhelming amount of climbers who share a similiar view on this subject. I'm sure there are a wide variety of opinions out there. That's a good thing, it should keep us all more aware and observant. No matter what, no climber should just go by a routes rating/ grade. So many other factors are involved and are relevant to each climber's strenghts, weaknesses and even how they are feeling that day (mentally and physically).

Once again, I do want to mention that I am glad these recent accidents are ones that can be recovered from and wish the injured well. It is good that there are forums like this to post the details of accidents to help keep all of us on our toes.


marc801


Aug 5, 2007, 2:52 PM
Post #68 of 76 (3646 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806

Re: [curt] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
Not with enough force to cause a compound fracture, I wouldn't think. I've done Arrow a fair number of times--and IMO, there almost certainly had to be some sort of belayer error involved in this accident.
If you are shorter than a certain height, there's actually a pretty tricky move on Arrow right off the belay ledge (GT ledge) and well below the 5.7 overhang 20' above the ledge. Discussion on gunks.com has confirmed that the injured climber did indeed fall on those opening moves and not up at the overhang as everyone assumes.


curt


Aug 5, 2007, 6:54 PM
Post #69 of 76 (3595 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [marc801] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

marc801 wrote:
curt wrote:
Not with enough force to cause a compound fracture, I wouldn't think. I've done Arrow a fair number of times--and IMO, there almost certainly had to be some sort of belayer error involved in this accident.
If you are shorter than a certain height, there's actually a pretty tricky move on Arrow right off the belay ledge (GT ledge) and well below the 5.7 overhang 20' above the ledge. Discussion on gunks.com has confirmed that the injured climber did indeed fall on those opening moves and not up at the overhang as everyone assumes.

Thanks for the update--that makes better sense.

Curt


dalguard


Aug 5, 2007, 7:28 PM
Post #70 of 76 (3577 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 1, 2003
Posts: 239

Re: [kmc] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

In reply to:
But to say that a 5.5 route will have a 5.8 move or more on it is crazy.
It's an exaggeration but we do like to say that certain routes are rated 5.7 because they only have one move of 5.10.

I don't think Gunks accidents happen because the routes are sandbagged. Accidents happen at the Gunks for the same reason they happen everywhere else: accidents happen. It's like wondering why there are so many car accidents on 95.


el_layclimber


Aug 5, 2007, 7:35 PM
Post #71 of 76 (3571 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2006
Posts: 550

Re: [rockclimbchar] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

rockclimbchar wrote:
gunked wrote:
kmc wrote:
actual quotes on sandbagging deleted, refer above

I think that this has most to do with the years the routes went up, not necessarily the area.

Pre-5.10, there were two going assumptions:
1. 5.10 is impossible, therefore if I did it, it was not a 10. That was almost impossible, but not too heinous...a 5.8

2. Anything people are doing in Yosemite has got to be harder than anything we are doing here. Better knock another number off - 5.7

Post 5.10, assumption number two still applies. Many people who were putting up routes in the 60s and 70s will confirm this.

I have climbed sections of 5.6 that might get a .9 these days, and can name a number of routes from the aforementioned era that have been raised from 5.9 to hard 5.11 in AZ and CA Supercrack (Indian Creek) used to be called .9 few guidebooks these days give that rating.

Then there's route finding. A 5.6 might easily turn into a ten if you miss a short traverse to a set of jugs expecting to just beeline to the top.


Partner cracklover


Aug 6, 2007, 6:10 AM
Post #72 of 76 (3535 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [rhunter] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Rhunter: Thanks very much for posting the reasons for your accident. It sounds like your own analysis is spot on. Kudos.

Hope you have a fast and a full recovery, and that hanging around here helps keep you excited about climbing until then.

GO


cchas


Aug 6, 2007, 7:34 AM
Post #73 of 76 (3485 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 9, 2005
Posts: 344

Re: [dalguard] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Too much is being played up upon the "sandbagged" ratings of the gunks.I had climbed 10+ years there including a couple year period where I did mostly R/X rated climbs.

I had said in my first post, that the easier climbs are blocky which can account for many leg/ankle injuries.

I've seen too many people who are fairly incompetent at placing pro (probably statistical since you have a larger number of people, so you get the full realm of the spectrum). I watched someeone on Frogland (how G can you get) place gear about every 6ft , and then watched EVERY single piece fall out . I use that one case but saw it often.

Now I disagree that G-rated routes can have sections of R on them . Most G- rated routes are perfectly G. As you get higher in the grades your ability to find and place gear needs to improve,.

To say that accidents are accidents and will always happen is a cop out. Some will happen due to a momentary mistake (which we all make) at the worst possible time. The woman on Arrow may have been this one (sorry to hear about that and get well). Some are due to a bad attitude being taken, especially complacency (sort of like that driver who is talking on the cell phone AND drinking their Starbucks coffee at the same time).

And yes, you may think I'm being an #ssh&$e on this one (or maybe any other subject) but my mentors (and these guys were A5/5.13 trad climbers) reminded me that if you have an accident, you have to deal with the pain, but everyone who cares about you has to deal with it to. An d because of that you should be slapped up across the head.


(This post was edited by cchas on Aug 6, 2007, 8:53 AM)


Partner cracklover


Aug 6, 2007, 7:56 AM
Post #74 of 76 (3472 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10161

Re: [cchas] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

cchas wrote:
Now I disagree that G-rated routes can have sections of R on them . Most G- rated routes are perfectly G. As you get higher in the grades your ability to find and place gear needs to improve.

I'm with you on this one. With modern gear, all the easy-moderate Gunks classics can absolutely be sewn up. Of course, if you either choose to run it out, or if you place poor gear for whatever reason (too pumped, no skills, etc) long falls are still possible.

I suspect that the modern style of running pitches together has contributed to the likelihood of bad falls. The need to conserve gear, combined with the necessity of placing less gear to reduce rope drag, means that an unexpected fall can have very serious consequences.

I don't think this is more true at the Gunks than elsewhere, except perhaps for the fact that Gunks climbs often feature traverses. And those traverses often feature cruxy climbing. Combine this with the fact that when you're running pitches together, when you hit a traverse you often will avoid placing a lot of gear, or will put very long runners on gear, in order to keep the rope running straight, and you get a recipe for a bad potential fall.

GO


njclimbingchic


Aug 6, 2007, 4:26 PM
Post #75 of 76 (3362 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 16, 2006
Posts: 1

Re: [majid_sabet] Gunks Accident(s) this weekend? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I do know of the big guy who took the fall on Saturday, Dave. He's a very big dude how has from what he said a lot of experience climbing. I guess it serves a reminder that even on easy climbs you should be focused and check your gear.

Clear mind is always a big plus in my book.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Injury Treatment and Prevention

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook