Apr 23, 2009, 2:11 AM
Post #1 of 35
(2814 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
Characterize your tolerance for unprotected climbing
Report this Post
Average:
(2 ratings)
Can't Post
Farther to the right means the higher the level of difficulty you will climb unprotected to get safe (e.g., reach pro) so long as any injury from a fall is fully recoverable (e.g., simple broken bone).
Farther upward means the higher the level of difficulty you will climb unprotected to get safe (e.g., reach pro) even though a fall means certain death.
The vertical axis and horizontal axis do not necessarily have the same scale. Yes, it is totally subjective.
The names are male-ish but not the character traits. It is an equal opportunity chart!
The vote: which do you think you are?
I thought of this question when I realized that I had climbing partners in at least 3 of the 4 categories who's company I enjoy out on the rock.
Other thoughts if you care to post an answer:
a) Do individual folks tend to naturally progress through most/all of these during their life time of climbing?
b) Are any of these types not compatable as climbing partners?
... just for fun.
Bill
(This post was edited by billl7 on Apr 23, 2009, 2:51 AM)
Nervous Nate, but I answered it before reading your post.
What's free-soloing got to do with reaching pro? The only pro in a free solo is the top out? It seems to me the title should be about run-out tolerance.
Your Manic Moe character is somebody who will free solo in the face of death but not if there is injury involved. How does that make any sense?
Basically the orthogonal axes are measuring aspects of the same thing. It's like having a graph of how tall you are in cm vs how tall you are in inches.
1. Is "increasing difficulty" to be interpreted as relative to individual ability? The high end perhaps being onsight level?
2. Perhaps I'm not looking at it right but I can't figure out how anyone would end up in "Manic Moe" category. Climbing in the "certain death" zone is obviously more severe than the bone breaking zone, so wouldn't they be maxed out on the horizontal axis by the time they reach the upper quadrants on the vertical axis?
What's free-soloing got to do with reaching pro? The only pro in a free solo is the top out? It seems to me the title should be about run-out tolerance.
I could not think of one simple meaningful word to encompass both free-solo and run-out. Hmmm, perhaps two words: "unprotected climbing". Edit: changed to those words.
(This post was edited by billl7 on Apr 23, 2009, 2:48 AM)
Apr 23, 2009, 2:42 AM
Post #8 of 35
(2741 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
Re: [notapplicable] Characterize your free-solo tolerance
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
notapplicable wrote:
Two questions.
1. Is "increasing difficulty" to be interpreted as relative to individual ability? The high end perhaps being onsight level?
Increasing difficulty simply as in 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, etc.. Perhaps onsight. Perhaps not. Just not putting a whole lot into the distinction although someone may want to call me out about that.
notapplicable wrote:
2. Perhaps I'm not looking at it right but I can't figure out how anyone would end up in "Manic Moe" category. Climbing in the "certain death" zone is obviously more severe than the bone breaking zone, so wouldn't they be maxed out on the horizontal axis by the time they reach the upper quadrants on the vertical axis?
That's the weird thing. One of the three types I mentioned was a Manic Moe. Note that I don't mean manic in the common sense of the word - just someone who seemed extremely cautious in one setting and not in another.
2. Perhaps I'm not looking at it right but I can't figure out how anyone would end up in "Manic Moe" category. Climbing in the "certain death" zone is obviously more severe than the bone breaking zone, so wouldn't they be maxed out on the horizontal axis by the time they reach the upper quadrants on the vertical axis?
That's the weird thing. One of the three types I mentioned was a Manic Moe. Note that I don't mean manic in the common sense of the word - just someone who seemed extremely cautious in one setting and not in another.
Now that I think about it, I do know people who swear up and down that if they fall they want it to be for good. No laying around in hospital beds for 5 months.
Not saying that I agree with or even believe them but I guess that would be Moe.
Your Manic Moe character is somebody who will free solo in the face of death but not if there is injury involved. How does that make any sense?
Maybe he should be named "Suicide Stan." Jay
Nah, he wasn't suicidal. Perhaps a Wild Bill might be but not Manic Moe - I hope to live as long and as well as he.
I'm not sure you appreciate the point that that quadrant represents someone who has a higher tolerance for death routes than ones where he might just sprain an ankle.
Your Manic Moe character is somebody who will free solo in the face of death but not if there is injury involved. How does that make any sense?
Maybe he should be named "Suicide Stan." Jay
Nah, he wasn't suicidal. Perhaps a Wild Bill might be but not Manic Moe - I hope to live as long and as well as he.
I'm not sure you appreciate the point that that quadrant represents someone who has a higher tolerance for death routes than ones where he might just sprain an ankle.
Your Manic Moe character is somebody who will free solo in the face of death but not if there is injury involved. How does that make any sense?
Maybe he should be named "Suicide Stan." Jay
Nah, he wasn't suicidal. Perhaps a Wild Bill might be but not Manic Moe - I hope to live as long and as well as he.
I'm not sure you appreciate the point that that quadrant represents someone who has a higher tolerance for death routes than ones where he might just sprain an ankle.
Apr 23, 2009, 1:02 PM
Post #18 of 35
(2395 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
Re: [billl7] Characterize your tolerance for unprotected climbing
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
billl7 wrote:
[edit... just realized this is all unprotected tolerance]
I'm still trying to define these personalities.... this is my take:
Nervous Nancy will only climb easier stuff that's G and PG13 won't solo.
Manic Moe will solo stuff that's hard and hope to just die rather than be injured much... even though they should know they will most likely die anyway. In essence a Manic Moe climbs like a Nancy but when faced with a challenging hard run-out will go for it, putting themselves in the Wild Bill category momentarily, not thinking about the possible outcome.... now I'm more confused about this quadrant.
Wild Bill will climb anything with confidence especially solo, not caring about the outcome.
Robot Rob will climb something hard but only if they know that injury, not death, will result.
(This post was edited by kachoong on Apr 23, 2009, 1:04 PM)
Apr 23, 2009, 1:11 PM
Post #19 of 35
(2377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
Re: Characterize your tolerance for unprotected climbing
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
Most all of my ropeless climbing has been up in the mountains, in a mountaineering context, (except for the (very) few times I simply sought to test myself on some local crag and what have you) to about 5.7 or on very rare occasion 5.8ish - you know, alpione approaches where you climb ropeless 2000 feet up a snow slope, climb ropeless across the schrund, climb ropeless another 500 feet up '4th class blocks' (haha, 4th class, riiiiiight), and then as high up the initial part of the climb as the team can tolerate. (usually ME calling for the rope - wah!)
In that context (mountaineering) death and difficulty aren't intertwined. Often the 4th class has more dada potential than that little 5.7 boulder problem to cross that block on the ridge.
But all in all? I range from Nervous Nate to Robot Rob in personality traits, when stressed by long runnouts or solos. I don't get manic and I don't have the guts to be wild. Robot Rob is sort of a shutdown... I don't think it is good for the soul.
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Apr 23, 2009, 1:12 PM)
Apr 23, 2009, 1:25 PM
Post #20 of 35
(2360 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
Re: [kachoong] Characterize your tolerance for unprotected climbing
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
kachoong wrote:
Manic Moe will .... now I'm more confused about this quadrant.
Exactly. For me, the person who fit in this quadrant might be explained as noted by notapplicable - not sure. Probably, there is other pertinent context I am omitting.
Apr 23, 2009, 1:28 PM
Post #21 of 35
(2356 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
Re: [dingus] Characterize your tolerance for unprotected climbing
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
dingus wrote:
Most all of my ropeless climbing has been up in the mountains, in a mountaineering context, ...
Indeed, it was a day spent mountaineering that brought this quasi-context to mind - in contrast to a day spent cragging some time prior with the same person.
Apr 23, 2009, 1:32 PM
Post #22 of 35
(2351 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 66
Re: [kachoong] Characterize your tolerance for unprotected climbing
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
I would suggest changing the quadrant diagram so that the horizontal axis represents increasing difficulty and the vertical axis represents decreasing safety.
• The bottom left quadrant would be someone who top-ropes the first move of a V0- (~5.3) 2 inches off the ground.
• The top right quadrant is someone who free solos a 5.15 exit pitch on El Cap on sight.
• The bottom right quadrant is someone who climbs hard sport or g-rated trad routes.
• The top left quadrant is someone who enjoys scrambling on loose, 80 degree talus slopes.
12 /
18%
1
