If you are falling on climbs less than 5.10, you're going about it all wrong. Generations of climbers have learned to work their way up through 5.9 without taking leader falls, primarily because the gear made falling a more serious proposition. But better gear won't make you a better climber, and it won't help you develop the discipline needed to climb with relative safety near your limit. So slow down and learn the fine art of failure, so that when tomorrow comes, you'll still be around for another try.

If you are falling on climbs less than 5.10, you're going about it all wrong. Generations of climbers have learned to work their way up through 5.9 without taking leader falls, primarily because the gear made falling a more serious proposition. But better gear won't make you a better climber, and it won't help you develop the discipline needed to climb with relative safety near your limit. So slow down and learn the fine art of failure, so that when tomorrow comes, you'll still be around for another try.

Another one of the reasons for a rule like this is that in many places the 5.10's are the first routes that are suited for safe falls on good and plentiful gear at the hard part.

One possible counter to this ideal would be if you’re unreasonably afraid of falling. In this case, learning that the rope will catch you in a safe manner, under ideal conditions can be helpful. I.E. Don’t fall by choice as opposed to being unreasonably afraid of it.

Being afraid of falling is a double edged sword. In one way it can keep you safer, in another it can prevent you from exploring your limits.

For the most part I don’t fall on trad. I reserve that for sport climbing, and sometimes I “sport climb” on gear.

For a full on beginner: don’t fall until you are confident of being able to tell the difference between a place where it is alright to fall and a place where it is not alright to fall.

Bottom line: I don’t buy the line “if you’re not falling, you’re not trying, and your not going to get any better.”

If you think you are not in control of a fall, then you need to PRACTICE!!!!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha!

So, is falling failing for boulderers too? cause if so, it seems like most boulderers are doing an awful lot of failing, but they sure seem to be havinig a lot of fun diong it.

I can't separate bouldering and trad. They just go hand in hand. And especially when you throw in high balling and free soloing, any distinction between bouldering and climbing is lost.

I used to feel guilty about not falling, that is until I read somewhere a little piece about your own personal ethics. Why should anyone climb any other way than what their own personal ethics dictates. For instance I hate to fall, I have downclimbed through the crux of a 5.11 climb because I was not comfortable with the next move.

I will grab a draw at my waist rather than falling. Mind you I have taken a 30 metre whipper when I got off route once. Pretty much the only time I will fall is when I least expect it, I will do everything in my power to prevent a fall. If I become absolutely spanked and the forearms a burning sooo much that I think they will explode then I amy spooge off the holds and drop whatever distance.

Even on huge big fat ringbolts on a roof every metre I will avoid falling on any sort of slack rope.

If you fall during an ascent, then you didn't "finish the climb," which was kind of the point in the first place.

Now that I have been leading trad climbs for a while, that do not fall style has oozed into my sport climbing and I am finding myself grabbing draws to avoid a potential fall injury. I have seen the financial hit even an insured accident can deliver, and hey, who wants an injury that keeps you from climbing? I still appoligize to my belayer when I do that anyway. Oh, the shame. Now that I have done some alpine climbs, you can bet I won't balk at doing whatever it takes not to fall.

If you never fall, you are not risking much, ans how much of an adventure is that?

Style is for redpoints and showing off hahaha, survival is for adventure climbing.

I say this because I trust that whether you’re just learning to lead trad on 5.2’s or leading 5.12 trad that the mental skillset remains constant.

Well, as far as the topic of this thread goes, I don't differentiate much between trad and bouldering either. I don't much like to fall when bouldering or roped climbing. Isn't it better to succeed than to fail--in any case?

Curt

I don't believe that at all. When you fall on routes less than 5.10, you're going to break something. Falling on something overhanging is much different than falling on something less than vertical.

Yes, but I consider a climb successful when I've given it my full effort; not by whether I get to the top without falling.

-Jay

I personally disagree with the notion that the leader doesn't fall. I personally feel a better way to look at it is that a good leader knows when it is safe to fall. Whether or not it is safe to fall on a route is something I determine before I begin any climb or pitch. A good leader should have the ability to assess a climb and determine if the terrain and protection are such that a fall would be safe or dangerous and then use this information in determining how they are going to approach the climb.

Really? :shock:

Absolutely. The redpoint will come eventually anyway; moreover, it will eventually come regardless of how I approach working the route. Therefore, ticking routes provides little real satisfaction. What does provides real satisfaction is the approach itself; not the outcome.

-Jay

The satisfaction aspect I can understand, but saying you consider a climb successful whether you get to the top without falling or not makes no sense to me. Can you clarify this?
Curt

I agree with this, and this is also a key concept of Ilgner's Rock Warrior's Way. The critical skill are: (1) your ability to accurately judge the consequences of the fall and (2) your ability to assess your skills wrt the climb and the potential fall. If you judge the risk acceptable, you climb with complete focus through the risk. The result will either be that you make it through the risk or you fall. If the consequences of the fall are acceptable to you, then backing down, even if the moves seem improbable, teaches you nothing; you simply have lost a learning opportunity.

-Jay

You both seem to assume that anybody can be a good leader. We are talking about begginer trad climbers, right?

Downclimbing teaches you nothing? Safely backing off a route that you're not ready for is an essential skill.

Almost everyone "thinks" they place good gear. Until someone else tells them they don't.

Because the real goal of the climb isn't to get to the top without falling.

My real goal is to learn something from the climb; and to learn from the climb you have to apply yourself to it fully. Therefore, a success, to me, is when I've fully applied myself to the climb, not when I've gotten to the top without falling.

If you're always getting to the top without falling, your learning is impeded because you are avoiding those very situations -- climbing beyond your current level -- where there is the most to learn.

-Jay

You both seem to assume that anybody can be a good leader. We are talking about begginer trad climbers, right?
One of the possible results is that you die.
The point of this thread is that most(not all) 5.9 and under climbers have not taken the time to learn those skills.

Downclimbing teaches you nothing? Safely backing off a route that you're not ready for is an essential skill.

Almost everyone "thinks" they place good gear. Until someone else tells them they don't.

Well, then we certainly disagree here. If you haven't gotten to the top of a climb without falling, you haven't actually done the climb.

I disagree with this as well. Of course, maybe I haven't actually been able to learn much from the several thousand climbs I have done over the last 25 years with the relatively few falls I've taken. Maybe the fact that my learning has been impeded explains why I have only been able to onsight 5.12 trad and not any 5.13s. Who knows? :D :D :D

No. I am saying that you learn more by actually doing the move than you do by falling off of it (i.e. failing to do the move.)

Unless, of course, what you are interested in "learning" is what not to do.

Curt

alpnclmbr1 First off the reason I said what I did in my post is because I feel like many new climbers don't do the things I said a leader should do. Second I never said that downclimbing was not an essential skill. Please read my post again and you will see that I said a good leader should determine whether or not it is generally safe or not safe to fall and then use this information in how they approach the climb. An example of this is if I determine it would be dangerous to fall then I don't put myself in a situation where I can no longer down climb (yes, there is such a thing). I have downclimbed on plenty of routes where I knew a fall could result in an injury. I believe that every climber is a leader in training and that as such they should treat every climb as if they are leading it. A believe that a good teacher will have a new climber make assessments about a route, like I discussed in my post, and then provide the new climber feedback about whether there assessments are correct. I also believe that this doesn't apply to just Trad routes but also sport and bouldering as well. I have seen tons of sport routes that I wouldn't want to fall on and a few boulder problems as well. Finally I really hate when people arbitrarily say that falling below 5.10 is dangerous and falling above 5.10 is safe. I know plenty of routes above and below this number that don't comply with this standard. I feel statements like this are much more dangerous to new climbers as it can incourage them to not properly assess a route. I hope this clarifies what I said earlier. Maybe I should have added that the part about if it's not safe to fall a leader always maintains an exit strategy and if it's not safe to fall don't get in a situation where you can't downclimb.

Maybe I should have added that the part about if it's not safe to fall a leader always maintains an exit strategy and if it's not safe to fall don't get in a situation where you can't downclimb.

No, I disagree. If you can do the move the first time, you already knew what to do. The move was more a test of your skill than a learning experience. Sure, you still learn this way: you may be applying current knowledge to a new situation, and thereby broadening your knowledge. Still, restricting yourself to moves, or routes, you can do on the first attempt is an inefficient way to learn to climb.


But that is precisely how we do learn! How do you learn a new boulder problem, by getting all the moves the first time? Of course not. You learn by making mistakes and correcting them. There is no reason to restrict this approach to bouldering.

-Jay

I've knowingly put myself in climbing situations that I couldn't have reversed even though a fall would have meant injury. For instance, I've dynoed with full knowledge that if I missed the dyno, I'd break my ankle(s). Why? Because I was confident I could do the move, and therefore was willing to accept the risk. So, it's not just the consequences of a fall that matter, but also your ability to judge how well you will perform while climbing in the risky situation.

-Jay

Really trying is not conductive to working the moves after a hang.

Why not? I try really hard before and after falling.

Are you saying that Chris Sharma and Tommy Caldwell didn't try hard after hanging on what are considered the hardest free climbs in the world.

But Jay aren't you implying (by the fact that you were confident you could do the move) that the dyno was not at your limit? And thus does not really adddress the learning at the limit question.

There must be some sort of expected value formula that relates the consequences of a fall with the probability of that fall. After all I've been on well maintained hiking trails where the consequences of a fall were catastrophic.

But Jay aren't you implying (by the fact that you were confident you could do the move) that the dyno was not at your limit? And thus does not really adddress the learning at the limit question.

There must be some sort of expected value formula that relates the consequences of a fall with the probability of that fall. After all I've been on well maintained hiking trails where the consequences of a fall were catastrophic.

No, I disagree. If you can do the move the first time, you already knew what to do.

RG. you still have not responded to the question about how Lynn scooped you guys on Vandals by hangdogging to work the crux moves. she credited this a breakthrough technique that helped her take her climbing to a whole new level.

What I am saying is that there is a difference between a redpoint burn and a hangdog burn.

If I go for a redpoint(or onsight) burn and fail, then usually I will lower and rest for an hour or more before trying again.

You learn just as much from succeeding first try as on the 20th try, except perhaps for knowing 19 things that don't work.

You learn just as much from succeeding first try as on the 20th try, except perhaps for knowing 19 things that don't work.

Curt

I saw you posted this earlier. FYI, Lynn did not do the first lead ascent of Vandals. Jeff Gruenberg did.

I agree with this, and this is also a key concept of Ilgner's Rock Warrior's Way. The critical skill are: (1) your ability to accurately judge the consequences of the fall and (2) your ability to assess your skills wrt the climb and the potential fall. If you judge the risk acceptable, you climb with complete focus through the risk. The result will either be that you make it through the risk or you fall. If the consequences of the fall are acceptable to you, then backing down, even if the moves seem improbable, teaches you nothing; you simply have lost a learning opportunity.
-Jay

Wasn't she the first to crack the hard opening moves?

Is this your understanding too, or not?

What I’m asking is what can be learned from learning how not to fall as I work my trad chops up to the 5.10ish level?

This had direct application for me. For example, I feel pretty confident in my gear placement. But I’ve never taken a fall on it. I’ve been leading 4’s, 5’s and a 6. Should I jump up to my 5.9 gym level where I am sure to fall and skip 5.7 and 5.8?

But that argues against the "practice falls" that Ilgner recommends. Or does it?

For 90% of the people out there: their time would be better spent climbing mileage instead of hangdogging and or falling. Hangdogging can be a useful tool, but calling it the best (or better) way to learn to climb is silly.

I agreed with everything you said until this:


I've knowingly put myself in climbing situations that I couldn't have reversed even though a fall would have meant injury. For instance, I've dynoed with full knowledge that if I missed the dyno, I'd break my ankle(s). Why? Because I was confident I could do the move, and therefore was willing to accept the risk. So, it's not just the consequences of a fall that matter, but also your ability to judge how well you will perform while climbing in the risky situation.

-Jay

But I’m not talking about that. What I’m asking is what can be learned from learning how not to fall as I work my trad chops up to the 5.10ish level? This had direct application for me. For example, I feel pretty confident in my gear placement. But I’ve never taken a fall on it. I’ve been leading 4’s, 5’s and a 6. Should I jump up to my 5.9 gym level where I am sure to fall and skip 5.7 and 5.8? Is there something more to learn about “keeping the balls in the air” at those levels that I haven’t already learned? My guess is that there is. My guess is that there is a lot more to learn and that’s why Goldstone’s, “slow down and learn the fine art of failure (at the sub 5.10 level), so that when tomorrow comes, you'll still be around for another try“ resonates so strongly. But that argues against the "practice falls" that Ilgner recommends. Or does it?

No. I am saying that you learn more by actually doing the move than you do by falling off of it (i.e. failing to do the move.) Unless, of course, what you are interested in "learning" is what not to do.

Curt

Pardon me for interupting a lively debate, but just a couple of historical comments: In the early days of rock climbing (1880s-1890s) in Great Britain the lack of protective devices made leading a bit like free soloing today, and the leader, it was sincerely hoped, would not fall. In the 1950s my old friend Dave Rearick (first ascent if the Diamond, Longs Peak, 1960) said to me on more than one occasion, "If you are not doing some falling, you have failed to reach your potential". At the time 5.9 or possibly 5.10 was the top grade. Pitons were the effective technology. Sorry for the interruption - please continue. 8^)

Mr. Gill is supporting the notion that if you don't occasionally take a fall you really aren't climbing at your full potental which curt has seemed to disagree with so far.

If you are falling on climbs less than 5.10, you're going about it all wrong. Generations of climbers have learned to work their way up through 5.9 without taking leader falls, primarily because the gear made falling a more serious proposition. But better gear won't make you a better climber, and it won't help you develop the discipline needed to climb with relative safety near your limit. So slow down and learn the fine art of failure, so that when tomorrow comes, you'll still be around for another try.

Rich's comments on falling comes from another era. One that shaped my early climbing career. Unlike Rick, I took a fair amount of falls back in the day and continue to do so.

Curt somehow has been stuck in that mindset :lol: and is still seen wearing painter pants and RD's to the boulders.

Curt also has a problem seeing the close relationship between bouldering and sport climbing. :shock:

Realization 5.15a 35-40 tries spread over 3 years, 3 years later still world's hardest route, monument to human perseverance and willpower

Stand at the base of this thing and tell me trying it over and over again will make you weaker. Oh but I guess that since failing repeatedly on it was "reinforcing repeated failure" and that it was "bad for (his) on-sighting skills in the short run at least" that he should have just given up.

Thats a stupid statement. If you worked realazation 3,000 times you would probobly get pretty strong.

I have more than one friend who worked a particular V9 boulder problem for anywhere from 3 months to a year before they sent it. I believe they fell off every time until they got the thing finished. They did get stronger, not weaker, and what they learned seemed to apply to other problems.

alpnclmbr1,

I'd argue that the correlation between the number of times you attempt a climb, and your potential to climb "in the moment" is rather weak. Remembering, executing, or failing to execute a sequence does not negate or prevent you from being immersed in the moment, being present.

Perhaps you learn more by being present, irrespective of the actual outcome of the climb, or dare I say, the style you do it in. For some people, being mindful, as opposed to going from the bottom of a route to the top without falling, is the more important goal.

Respects,
Evan

The notion that working a route and falling off it teaches us nothing useful about climbing that route is patently ridiculous on the face of it. It can be dismissed out of hand as old school raving. DMT

Are you saying that that they climbed nothing else to learn from during this time? Are you saying that It was so far over their current levels that they couldn't even get on it when they started, and everything they learned during that time came from falling off?

Thats a stupid statement. If you worked realazation 3,000 times you would probobly get pretty strong.

Here is another take on 1 try vs. 20:

Realization 5.15a 35-40 tries spread over 3 years, 3 years later still world's hardest route, monument to human perseverance and willpower

Stand at the base of this thing and tell me trying it over and over again will make you weaker. Oh but I guess that since failing repeatedly on it was "reinforcing repeated failure" and that it was "bad for (his) on-sighting skills in the short run at least" that he should have just given up.

Pushing your personal standards makes you weaker and reinforces failure...wow, you sound like a great guy to hang out with!

It can be dismissed out of hand as old school raving.

DMT

I had no idea any Old Schoolers were into those rave things. Do they also do foam parties? What ever happened to passing a bottle of port around the campfire?

The notion that working a route and falling off it teaches us nothing useful about climbing that route is patently ridiculous on the face of it. It can be dismissed out of hand as old school raving.

DMT

Port? That's the stuff our grandmas nipped while cooking Thanksgiving Dinner, no? No, I don't think port quite gets the job done anymore.

X-tacy and viagra dude. Where ya been??? The stiff guy dancing by the door is pointing the way...

DMT

I think you may have missed the point. If all you know how to do is climb until you top out or fall, then you can only climb at or near your limit in environments that are condusive to that - like plastic and steep sport routes.

The idea of working the grades and not falling in trad is that you learn the valuable skills of downclimbing and retreat.

Without practice, downclimbing anywhere close to your top grade is not going to happen. And, without the safety net of knowing you can back off, the gear factor is going to cap your trad limit. I think that is why so many wicked strong young climbers, honed on bouldering and plastic, still hit a wall at 5.9 in trad.

How else would an old duffer like me wind up retrieving gear from a 5.8 climb for 5.13 sport climbers?

Another issue is building judgement, it takes quite a bit of experience in trad for most climbers to be able to identify 'benign' falling conditions.