|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 26, 2008, 10:10 PM
Post #26 of 93
(2075 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
styndall wrote: dingus wrote: styndall wrote: I don't know. They used the tools the had to stay safe in so much as it was possible and still climb what they wanted to climb. Hmmm, both have said, along with Chouinard in his own way, that they eschewed available tools and techniques not in keeping with their (forgive me) pro-risk focus. Bachar would be another, in his case he dropped ALL the tools cept for shoes and chalk. Its not worth arguing over. I'm not them and never climbed that way either. But I believe them nevertheless. Cheers DMT It's possible, of course, that they actively looked for stuff that would kill them, but, since they mostly survived anyway, I've got my doubts. Bachar was (and is, I think, though I don't follow so closely) a soloing fiend, but I expect he had the sense not to solo things he thought would kill him or that he couldn't back out of if he needed. Stuff I've read about John Yablonski makes me think that he might have been the best example of someone who seeks out actual risk, but I never got a chance to talk to the guy, so who knows?
I suggest you're confusing risk with the results, and/or veiled suicide attempts.
Saying that because he didn't die means he wasn't seeking out risk, about bachar? Sorry my friend, I don't buy that for a second.
No biggie though.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Mar 26, 2008, 10:14 PM
Post #27 of 93
(2071 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
drljefe wrote: I think too much LYCRA has been taken out of climbing.
Done out necessity, to many lycrofractures.
|
|
|
|
|
styndall
Mar 26, 2008, 10:15 PM
Post #28 of 93
(2071 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 2741
|
dingus wrote: styndall wrote: dingus wrote: styndall wrote: I don't know. They used the tools the had to stay safe in so much as it was possible and still climb what they wanted to climb. Hmmm, both have said, along with Chouinard in his own way, that they eschewed available tools and techniques not in keeping with their (forgive me) pro-risk focus. Bachar would be another, in his case he dropped ALL the tools cept for shoes and chalk. Its not worth arguing over. I'm not them and never climbed that way either. But I believe them nevertheless. Cheers DMT It's possible, of course, that they actively looked for stuff that would kill them, but, since they mostly survived anyway, I've got my doubts. Bachar was (and is, I think, though I don't follow so closely) a soloing fiend, but I expect he had the sense not to solo things he thought would kill him or that he couldn't back out of if he needed. Stuff I've read about John Yablonski makes me think that he might have been the best example of someone who seeks out actual risk, but I never got a chance to talk to the guy, so who knows? I suggest you're confusing risk with the results, and/or veiled suicide attempts. Saying that because he didn't die means he wasn't seeking out risk, about bachar? Sorry my friend, I don't buy that for a second. No biggie though. Cheers DMT
Not that he wasn't seeking out risk, but rather that he was seeking out manageable risk, not unlike my scraggly ass in the 80s and most people around today. You find your ability, you find the point where you're excited, having fun, and maybe a little scared and mix that point with the one where you're not likely to die, and you climb it.
|
|
|
|
|
gunksgoer
Mar 26, 2008, 10:20 PM
Post #29 of 93
(2067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 1290
|
It has been said that vehicle accident fatalities would drop if cars didnt have airbags, but rather a 10 inch spike mounted on the steering wheel.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 26, 2008, 10:24 PM
Post #30 of 93
(2061 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
gunksgoer wrote: It has been said that vehicle accident fatalities would drop if cars didnt have airbags, but rather a 10 inch spike mounted on the steering wheel.
When I was a kid my pop had a Case tractor with a steering ball in the steering wheel. Made turning that sucker much easier. He said they were outlawed in cars because people died slamming into them.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
on_belay_hombre
Mar 26, 2008, 10:30 PM
Post #31 of 93
(2059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2006
Posts: 105
|
In reply to: It has been said that vehicle accident fatalities would drop if cars didnt have airbags, but rather a 10 inch spike mounted on the steering wheel.
So would that reduce the risks in driving?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 26, 2008, 10:31 PM
Post #32 of 93
(2058 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
styndall wrote: Not that he wasn't seeking out risk, but rather that he was seeking out manageable risk, not unlike my scraggly ass in the 80s and most people around today.
Actually the post I responded to said we modern climbers seek to reduce risk where ever possible. I believe that is true for *many* of us. Leaving the rack in the car is not reducing risk where ever possible. That was the point I'm trying to make.
Not to belabor the point, but bachar has free soloed hard 12s SINCE breaking his neck - again, that isn't reducing risk, that's embracing it.
I'm told that taking the choice of less tech, less tools and embracing more risk as a direct result, was more common in the 70s and prior. It started fading in the 80s, and sport climbing, where risk management and safety were taken to whole new levels, replaced the older risk-oriented style as 'the place to be.'
Now the ultimate performance in climbing is far more associated with pure athletic performance and far less often it is 'head' climbing.
I agree its still around. But I also agree with granite grrls points that it isn't the 'main domain' anymore.
Cheers dude
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a.frosch
Mar 26, 2008, 11:40 PM
Post #34 of 93
(2027 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2007
Posts: 69
|
Are you sure? Bachar was (and is) a master of mental and physical control. When he soloed stuff, he was on top of his game from the minute he started off to the minute he topped out. I just re-read his thoughts on free soloing in the old classic "free climbing with JB" and it sure doesn't sound like someone crazy who seeks out risk for risk's sake. Obviously he took risks, but from all accounts, including his own, when he did something "dangerous" he was always careful to manage the danger with good judgement, skill, and a cool head.
Why do you think he's still alive?
|
|
|
|
|
Tree_wrangler
Mar 26, 2008, 11:50 PM
Post #35 of 93
(2021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 403
|
In reply to: How many climbing deaths per year would be considered 'acceptable losses?'
Well, in the eyes of a safety-hawk, like an regulatory-agency employee, "None".
And, given climbings "deathsport" image, I imagine that climbing can handle far fewer deaths or critical injuries/capita (climbers) than almost any other sport before regulation of some kind is imposed.
Take, oh...I don't know.....cycling. There have to be more deaths per capita (serious cyclers, not just "I rode to the kwiki mart for milk) in the cycling community, but it doesn't make news....I personally know people who are dead, paralyzed, or spent time in intensive care from bikes, but I don't know a single person who's been killed, paralyzed by climbing.....
Or Skiing? I've seen life-flight carry bodies/critically injured victimes away from resorts multiple times. I've been a near victim multiple times, and I know multiple people that have been seriously or critically injured.....but folks just can't wait to get their 4 year old into the sport.....It just doesn't have that death-sport image......
In the end, tho, any number of deaths in climbing is acceptable, because they are all essentially avoidable, and therefore, only the victim (not the sport in general) can be held responsible for the loss.
|
|
|
|
|
punk_rocker333
Mar 27, 2008, 12:13 AM
Post #36 of 93
(2005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2004
Posts: 387
|
dingus wrote: gunksgoer wrote: It has been said that vehicle accident fatalities would drop if cars didnt have airbags, but rather a 10 inch spike mounted on the steering wheel. When I was a kid my pop had a Case tractor with a steering ball in the steering wheel. Made turning that sucker much easier. He said they were outlawed in cars because people died slamming into them. DMT
Yep, I've got a "suicide knob" on my truck's wheel. It's pretty nice!
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 27, 2008, 1:34 AM
Post #37 of 93
(1977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
a.frosch wrote: Are you sure? Bachar was (and is) a master of mental and physical control. When he soloed stuff, he was on top of his game from the minute he started off to the minute he topped out. I just re-read his thoughts on free soloing in the old classic "free climbing with JB" and it sure doesn't sound like someone crazy who seeks out risk for risk's sake.
You're not getting it. You're equating risk with reckless behavior. You are actually making my point, if you'll think about it.
When I say Bachar embraces risk, I am not thinking he is a reckless individual. Quite the opposite, as you have pointed out. He's very careful about how he manages that risk.
You, however, do equate the assumption of risk with reckless behavior (you said as much) and judging by your comments that's something you believe should be avoided.
See what I mean? There is NO WAY you could stand at the base of a route and watch someone like Bachar free solo it and then turn to me and say it wasn't rrisky.
Ok, there's a way, but its not credible.
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Mar 27, 2008, 1:42 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
rasoy
Mar 27, 2008, 4:00 AM
Post #38 of 93
(1945 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2007
Posts: 242
|
Has too much risk been taken out of climbing?
Nah, it's the people, they're mostly pussies now.
Just read most of the crap on this site for an example.
by now .....
(This post was edited by rasoy on Mar 27, 2008, 4:01 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
raingod
Mar 27, 2008, 4:26 AM
Post #39 of 93
(1925 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2003
Posts: 118
|
"Has too much risk been taken out of climbing? "
No! Climbing is as its always been a personal matter.
You can be as safe or as dangerous as you wish, what anyone else does is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
james481
Mar 27, 2008, 4:54 AM
Post #40 of 93
(1909 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2007
Posts: 201
|
The better question: Is our enjoyment and worth derived from climbing proportional to the level of risk? Is our climbing worth less today, in the age of high strength, professionally engineered dyneema, nylon, and aluminum gear, than if we lived 75 years ago and tied a bowline around our waist with a hemp rope?
For me, the answer is no. My enjoyment of climbing does not appear to me to be linked to the level of risk in any meaningful way. That's not to say I don't sometimes enjoy what I perceive as dangerous situations, but I also greatly enjoy top-roping routes in the gym. All that being said, I can easily envision the viewpoint of a climber who does derive a great deal of enjoyment from the risk aspect of the sport.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Mar 27, 2008, 4:57 AM
Post #41 of 93
(1906 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
on_belay_hombre wrote: In reply to: there's no denying that much risk has been mitigated by the many advances in climbing related technology. But the mitigation of risk is all in the hands of those who use use that technology. A lot of the risk in climbing is directly related to climbers using the technology available to them effectively/properly/safely. Whether climbing on a hemp rope or the best rope made today, either can be scary in the wrong hands. That goes for any climbing technology...just look at the gri-gri.
Do you then believe that a covered wagon crossing of the American continent in the mid-nineteenth century was no more dangerous than a similar crossing made today in a Boeing 767? I suppose you must--if you honestly think that relative risk levels have nothing to do with advancing technology. Too bad we can't ask the Donners...
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 27, 2008, 5:53 AM
Post #42 of 93
(1887 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
unbreakablesoul wrote: I've been researching the risk that has been taken out of adventure programs (2 ropes required for top rope elements on a high ropes course, backing up figure 8 knots...
I was taught 21 years ago to back up my figure-8 knots. If anything, I have observed a trend in the opposite direction: not to back up the knot.
In reply to: ...backing up harnesses...)
Nobody in climbing backs up their harness. I can't even imagine what backing up a harness would mean.
In reply to: It has lead me to ask, has too much risk been taken out of climbing? At first I thought no, but then I started noticing a few trends and comparing old climbers to new and checking out the differences. Tying in with a bowline around the waist, or having a harness with a figure 8. Safety or comfort?
I think you need to look up the definition of "trend." A single event, such as the change from tying in directly with the rope to using a harness is not a trend. And the change is primarily for comfort -- a lot of comfort.
In reply to: 2 slings to clip in with while cleaning a sport route, both with lockers, or one without a locker?
The standard has been the same since the inception of sport climbing: the tie-in should be redundant, and there is no need to use any lockers. Again, there is no "trend" here.
In reply to: Anchors that must be perfectly equalized (or as close to it as you can get).
Again, there is no clear trend here. The pendulum has swung back and forth between equalization and minimizing the possible extension in the anchor as more information is learned.
In reply to: A lot of these things sound like personal preferences but as more climbers get out there the sport grows and evolves based on what is being done now. Will the day come when you need 3 anchor bolts for a sport route? 3 Slings to clean them?
You have presented no evidence that that is the case, and I can think of no reason why it ever would be the case. You are perceiving patterns where only randomness exists.
In reply to: Does everyone have to wear a helmet?
There actually has been a trend toward increased helmet use while climbing, at least here in the U.S. However, this has paralleled (1) an increase in the popularity of the sport, leading to increased crowdedness of routes, and hence an increase in the risk of rockfall injury; (2) a decrease in the level of competence of the average climber, and hence an increase in the risk of head injury; and (3) a secular increase in the use of helmets generally. When I was a kid, you'd have been considered a retard to wear a helmet while riding your bicycle; now it's a law.
In reply to: When I was taught to climb I was told that you can't belay without a ground anchor cause you are as good as dead without it. Fortunately I quickly rid myself of that by climbing with others and seeing that it is safe without it. However, if someone is teaching people to climb and telling them that, what does that mean for the future of climbing?
Again, I was taught 20 years ago always to anchor in while belaying. Again, any trend appears to exist only in your imagination. What does this mean for the future of climbing? Absolutely nothing. Climbers will continue to be taught, and to shed, overly conservative, and sometimes counterproductive, practices.
In reply to: There is also the old climbers who climb on the most beat up old junk looking trad gear and clip carabiner to carabiner for extenders and flip their cam's in the air mid climb before placing them. Still alive and sending 5.13s...
Another seemingly meaningless "point."
In reply to: So I would love to hear what you think is becoming too safe and what isn't as well as why. What have you learned and dismissed, or picked up along the way?
I would like to learn what the fuck you are trying to get at, and why. I hope your academic research aims are better thought out and articulated than this.
In reply to: *Note: None of this info is going to be used in research or anything so feel free to just dump out whatever you want.
Good thing, that.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 27, 2008, 6:05 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Mar 27, 2008, 5:56 AM
Post #43 of 93
(1881 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
majid_sabet wrote: Is climbing dangerous? Yes ___________________ Have a safe climb.
Quoted for prosperity.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Mar 27, 2008, 5:57 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Mar 27, 2008, 6:05 AM
Post #44 of 93
(1873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
jt512 wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Is climbing dangerous? Yes ___________________ Have a safe climb. Quoted for prosperity. Jay
Quoted for prosperity!!
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Mar 27, 2008, 3:23 PM
Post #45 of 93
(1834 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
You know what? After thinking about it further, I take back my earlier statement saying climbing hasn't become less risky. I hadn't really thought about it enough yet when I made that statement.
Ran across this amazing video of Emilio Comici. Watch it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u69RdfqytM
And it's not just the super-athletes like Comici and Bonatti, either. I've seen movie footage of an early ascent of Cannon Cliff's Whitney Gillman Ridge by the Harvard Mountaineering Club. These were just a bunch of excited college kids. A belay was maybe one pin, in exfoliating granite, and then the leader would regularly fight 15, 20, 25 feet out - crappy shoes skittering around like a dog trying to run on linoleum, before finding a stance good enough to be able to stop and place a pin.
And Jay, 20 years ago was the height of the sport climbing revolution. I'm talking about further ago than that.
GO
(This post was edited by cracklover on Mar 27, 2008, 4:15 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
rasoy
Mar 27, 2008, 3:51 PM
Post #46 of 93
(1822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2007
Posts: 242
|
jt512 said -- "Nobody in climbing backs up their harness. I can't even imagine what backing up a harness would mean."
I've seen a lot of backing up of the harness over the years, so you obviously haven't been around the block yet.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Mar 27, 2008, 4:26 PM
Post #47 of 93
(1806 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
the great thing about climbing is that it can be as safe, or as risky as you make it.
The only requirements are that you are honest about what you are accomplishing, and do not put others at risk.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 27, 2008, 4:33 PM
Post #48 of 93
(1799 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
rasoy wrote: jt512 said -- "Nobody in climbing backs up their harness. I can't even imagine what backing up a harness would mean." I've seen a lot of backing up of the harness over the years, so you obviously haven't been around the block yet.
A friend of mine, who is old school Berkeley and an off width god, backs up his harness by using a full strength sling for his chalk bag. I liked that idea so much I started doing it.
That way, you get to a belay and you're out of slings you can always sling yer chalk bag. I do this with my camera case too - its on a full strength runner.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Mar 27, 2008, 5:13 PM
Post #49 of 93
(1778 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
unbreakablesoul wrote: It has lead me to ask, has too much risk been taken out of climbing?
No. As many have written cimbing is still as dangerous as you want it to be.
I think the real point is that most of the climbers out there right now would not be climbers without the technology and gear that made increased in safety possible.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 27, 2008, 6:14 PM
Post #50 of 93
(1756 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Watch this vid:
http://www.tcm.com/...5&titleId=400726
Priceless. I'll post the link somewhere else in a separate thread too as this will surely be the LAST WORD on this risky bullshit.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
