|
john_galt
Aug 5, 2002, 4:41 PM
Post #1 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2002
Posts: 21
|
I saw this photo on Rock&Ice.com and it made me a bit mad.
http://www.rockandice.com/exposedpages/exposed118bon.html
My first thought was "Hey dumb ass, get a rope." I know that bouldering is a great way to climb, and I enjoy bouldering, but shouldn't there be some limit to how high people go? Why would you be as high as this guy with nothing to keep you from the ground but luck and a prayer? And why would Rock & Ice post this as something that climbers should do? They don't call them accidents because people meant to do them. Is it just me or is bouldering this high just plain stupid? (Maybe I'm missing something.)
|
|
|
|
|
roclymber
Aug 5, 2002, 4:47 PM
Post #2 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2001
Posts: 157
|
he's not bouldering... I have the issue, and took a good look at it.
just plain ol' free climbing. 'sides I dont think anyone is stupid enought to free solo a crack anyhow.
-matt
|
|
|
|
|
bolder
Aug 5, 2002, 4:54 PM
Post #3 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 28, 2002
Posts: 203
|
It is Peter Croft. He is Free Soloing. Nothing new, he has been doing it longer than you have been alive.
|
|
|
|
|
john_galt
Aug 5, 2002, 4:54 PM
Post #4 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2002
Posts: 21
|
Okay, then I am missing something...
What is the difference between free climbing and bouldering? Sorry, I am new to this whole thing and I'm trying to sort out terminology.
-Apologies?
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Aug 5, 2002, 4:56 PM
Post #5 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Its called free-soloing. Its also called "that's Peter Croft". Peter is an very nice guy, who I had the pleasure of meeting and talking to in JT one year.
He has free solo'd Astroman/Rostarum in Yosemite along with a zillion other Yosemite Park, Squamish, Joshua Tree, and other area hard cracks.
You guys really need to get up to speed! I personally do not free solo, but then again I am smart enough to realize that free soloing is not for me.
People too stupid to realize that unless they are 100% sure of themselves on a climb like that they will will most likely die, are just proving Darwin correct.
|
|
|
|
|
duck
Aug 5, 2002, 4:58 PM
Post #6 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 84
|
That's not bouldering, but I don't see any pro, rope, etc in there either, just a chalkbag, a crack, and Peter Croft, who either has a serious case of Testicular Elephantesis, or has a brain that weighs less than a Wiregate.
Judgeing by the above posts, I'm betting on the balls
[ This Message was edited by: duck on 2002-08-05 09:59 ]
|
|
|
|
|
john_galt
Aug 5, 2002, 5:00 PM
Post #7 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2002
Posts: 21
|
So are we saying that unless you are Peter Croft, don't do this ever? What is free climbing and why do folks do it? Am I wrong in assuming that free climbing merely adds the risk of dying to the enjoyment of climbing? Don't get mad... I'm asking.
|
|
|
|
|
john_galt
Aug 5, 2002, 5:04 PM
Post #8 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2002
Posts: 21
|
Apologies to Peter... Who happens to be the athelete of the month. Oops...
[ This Message was edited by: john_galt on 2002-08-05 10:04 ]
|
|
|
|
|
gazony
Aug 5, 2002, 5:04 PM
Post #9 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 21
|
what would be the difference between bouldering and free-soloing? is free-soloing just bouldering only higher? just a lil info to clear me up. thanx
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Aug 5, 2002, 5:04 PM
Post #10 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
FREE climbing is climbing with rope and protection. the difeerence from AID is that you use gear ONLY for protection. BOULDERING is climbing short problems without rope, with people spotting you and some crashpads. FREE SOLOING is climbing a route tithout any protection.
hope i was helpful. btw, check the "climbing terms" page.
CLIMB ON
|
|
|
|
|
rocknpowda
Aug 5, 2002, 5:05 PM
Post #11 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2002
Posts: 418
|
Here's some quick terminology to set you straight on the different types of climbing.
Aid Climbing-pulling on equipment to get up the rock
Free climbing- using your equipment only to catch you if you fall.
Roped soloing-slimbing by yourself with a rope to either aid your way the rock or catch you if you fall.
Free soloing-climbing with out a any protection to pull on or catch you if you fall (Peter Croft is free soloing in the picture). Usually done on routes where other climbers use a rope and protection if they fall.
Bouldering-climbing relatively short rocks and faces with a knowledge that you'll land on the ground or crashpad if you fall.
Highball bouldering-climbing relatively high boulders or faces that are not set up for roped climbing with the knowledge that you'll hit the ground or a crashpad if you fall.
|
|
|
|
|
howitzer
Aug 5, 2002, 5:06 PM
Post #12 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 5, 2002
Posts: 2511
|
OK, everyone got to the answer before me, so to answer the next question, yes the ground catches him. He's a good climber who knows what he's doing, and has done this type of climbing for a long long time.
[ This Message was edited by: howitzer on 2002-08-05 10:07 ]
|
|
|
|
|
john_galt
Aug 5, 2002, 5:06 PM
Post #13 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2002
Posts: 21
|
So if Peter falls, the ground catches him?
Hmm...
|
|
|
|
|
bolder
Aug 5, 2002, 5:08 PM
Post #14 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 28, 2002
Posts: 203
|
Terminology help. Free climbing is Bouldering, Sport, and trad climbing. It is climbing the rock without the use of gear except to stop a fall.
Aid climbing uses gear to ascend the rock.
Free soloing is climbing without the use of any gear to hold a fall.
Oh yeah, soloing can be done with the use of gear as well. I am sure that someone will fill in the holes in my definitions.
|
|
|
|
|
john_galt
Aug 5, 2002, 5:09 PM
Post #15 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2002
Posts: 21
|
Okay, so what about the folks that aren't Peter? How high do people traditionally free/solo/ climb?
[ This Message was edited by: john_galt on 2002-08-05 10:11 ]
|
|
|
|
|
duck
Aug 5, 2002, 5:09 PM
Post #16 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2002
Posts: 84
|
I'm not a free climber, but I can understand the mindset.
They don't do it because of the death risk, they do it to live. Peter isn't the only one out there, there's a Spiderman guy (I think he's french) who does buildings, BIG (like the twin towers in KL big) buildings.
He simply has the experiance, and confidence in his abilities to perform the activity in it's purest manner, Free Solo.
While you and I would look at that and think it terrifying, he's completely at peace. Because for him, at the moment, there is nothing in the world, but that rock. Such a level of focus and dedication is incomprehinsible for most people, you and I would be overwhelmhed by our acrophobia at that point, even if in a harness we would be fine, that's because he's mastered his fear, you and I haven't.
There's also a satisfaction that comes from doing something with zero tolerance for error. I spent many years driving Formula cars and can appreciate that. When you're doing 200Mph, 3" off the ground and 6" away from another guy doing 200Mph there isn't a whole lot that can go wrong without someone getting hurt in a hurry. After ou do that for an hour straight you sit back and quietly smile, rearing to go again
These guys (and girls) that have mastered their fears, confidence, and bodies enough to perform serious free-solo work are amazing people. The combined levels of technique, grace, and precision blow me away. But for now, and for forseeable future, I'll sit and watch from the ground or my harness with the rest of the masses. I'm allergic to death.
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Aug 5, 2002, 5:12 PM
Post #17 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
Quote: 'sides I dont think anyone is stupid enought to free solo a crack anyhow.
I'm not sure if this was meant seriously or not, but most free soloists stick to cracks. Cracks are generally more secure and don't have as much breaking off of them. I've pulled several holds off face climbs and would hate to have that as the reason I fell 500' to my death. To an experienced crack climber jams and locks are the most secure thing you can find and it makes sense to stay where you are secure.
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Aug 5, 2002, 5:21 PM
Post #18 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
As has already been pointed out, that's Peter Croft - one of the best crack climbers in the world who has solo'd (definitions addressed in previous posts) some very hard cracks over the years, including many many many 5.11 multipitch testpieces. He has onsight freesolo'd most of the big hard routes in the Sierra in the 5.10 and 5.11 range.
It's not balls, it's his preferred method of climbing. Just like you know you're not going to fall off a ladder, someone like Peter Croft (or John Bachar or Dean Potter) know's they're not going to fall. Yes, soloist's die - Derek Heresy, even Lynn Hill nearly died - accidents happen. But they don't do it to put their life at risk. People fall off their roofs and die as well without having thought they were putting their lives at risk.
I also agree that most soloists stick to cracks. I've soloed a lot of short cracks (so call it highballing, whatever) up to 5.9 or 5.10, because I'm climbing without a partner, know the climbs super well, know that I can downclimb, and know that I won't fall. In this way I can sleep in, go out and climb 20 or 30 routes in a couple hours and be back home by 11 in the morning. I would never solo a face climb or (ass puckering) a slab of any signifigant height or difficulty however - if you have the experience, cracks are BY FAR the most secure things you can climb. In the mountains or at Tahquitz or in the Valley I'll frequently run cracks out quite a bit farther than I would ever run anything else out just because I know that I can get a sinker jam anywhere to put pro in. If I can't find the next sinker jam at some point, then I use the one I'm hanging from to put some gear in before futzing with something insecure.
josh
|
|
|
|
|
rockfax
Aug 5, 2002, 5:37 PM
Post #19 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2001
Posts: 652
|
, I saw this photo on Rock&Ice.com and it made me a bit mad.
http://www.rockandice.com/exposedpages/exposed118bon.html >
Why are you mad? We are free to cclimb how we like. It is a personal decision.
Get rid of that mindset. No there are no limits.
regards,
Mick
www.rockfax.com
|
|
|
|
|
mtnjohn
Aug 5, 2002, 5:45 PM
Post #20 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2002
Posts: 230
|
solo if you want to solo
rope up if you want to rope up
I've seen both types of climbers hit the deck
Everyone climbs for thier own reasons in their own way.
If you've ever scrambled up 4th clas approaches, unroped then you soloed at some level. If you feel the desire you may try it at more demanding levels.
Rember "soloing is serious business, you could be seriously dead"
John Bacha(paraphrased)
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Aug 5, 2002, 5:50 PM
Post #21 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
Mick, there are certain issues with the mags promoting dangerous climbing to those who are too stupid to be responsible with themselves.
It's a crappy issue, really people should know how to respect their limits and climb within their abilities, but many are too stupid to realize that they shouldn't highball like Kehl, or solo like Croft.
I can see how there could be some reason for concern.
|
|
|
|
|
astone
Aug 5, 2002, 6:03 PM
Post #22 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2002
Posts: 183
|
Hey john_galt, they call it "free" climbing for a reason. You are free to go as high as you want. There is no "traditional" limit to how high people climb without a rope.
As for calling Peter Croft a dumbass, all I can say is that he occupies a completely different psychological dimension than you do. Bite your tongue!
|
|
|
|
|
john_galt
Aug 6, 2002, 2:16 PM
Post #23 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2002
Posts: 21
|
Yeah, tongue bitten. See, being new I didn't know who Peter Croft was. So all I saw was some guy a hundred feet off the ground with nothing but air between him and the ground and I thought that couldn't be safe, and why is a mag promoting what seems to be so unsafe. I understand now that it is not safe for a guy like Peter Croft, and I see that some folks enjoy this type of climbing. My question remains however, why do it in the first place? If you rope up, and never use the rope at all, isn't that just like doing what he's doing, only without the risk of dying? Do far the only thing that has made sense is the ladder analogy, but still, I would never climb a ladder that would kill me if a rung snapped.
|
|
|
|
|
rockfax
Aug 6, 2002, 2:35 PM
Post #24 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2001
Posts: 652
|
The magazines aren't promoting they are reporting what climbers do.
The picture looks dangerous, but soloists know what they are doing. They hardly ever fall.
I see more dangerous practices by climbers using ropes.
All forms of climbing are dangerous...NEVER forget that...from harmless looking bouldering to mixed horrors in the Alps. From the obvious to the un-obvious. (so what do you want? No pictures in the magazines?)
We don't need nannying.
Your safety is your concern and no-one elses.
Rather than being mad, you should be in awe at Peter Crofts grace and safety in such a precarious position.
|
|
|
|
|
john_galt
Aug 6, 2002, 2:46 PM
Post #25 of 50
(6307 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2002
Posts: 21
|
Well said, stand corrected and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
