UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => news => Topic started by: andy popp on May 17, 2015, 10:17:25 pm
-
....
No real details but it seems Dean Potter has died in an accident in Yosemite.
-
Wow. :'(
-
gulp. grim scenes.
-
http://www.climbing.com/news/dean-potter-killed-in-base-jump/
-
Half of me is really not suprised, and the other half thought he would live forever. He had such a big presence, alot of people will miss him. His freebase big wall climbing was pretty awesome...
-
A little more detail here: http://www.outsideonline.com/1981591/dean-potter-killed-base-jumping-accident
-
Almost seemed inevitable. Very sad.
-
Read this the other day, thought it was good...
The Call by Dean S. Potter (http://www.alpinist.com/doc/web15s/wfeature-the-call-dean-potter-alp0)
-
Sad to hear this.
You have to wonder when someone is into that type of proximity basejumping if they're on borrowed time from day one.
-
So sad.
-
really sad but as T_B said it seemed inevitable
bbc article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32776686
-
Sad news indeed. It seemed inevitable, with that constant level of risks taken. And let's not forget his flying partner died as well.
-
Shit news. RIP.
-
Kept rolling the dice, but what a life.
Condolences to is nearest friends and his family,
-
Wow, sad news. RIP
-
This from The Guardian gives some great insight into his motivation:
He developed the skill to climb difficult walls without ropes, relying on a small chute on his back in case he fell. “I love the idea that I can change the worst possible thing to the best possible thing – dying to flying,” he said in a video from Sender Films.
I hate things like this. You hope people will live long enough to enjoy the memories.
-
Dave, as someone who's known for some fairly hard necky soloing in his time, how do you reconcile your experiences of big solos with what you know of Potter and folk like Dan Osman, i.e. high profile deaths doing big-number spinoff activities like roped jumps, wingsuit stuff etc. Is that crossover and relentless "dice rolling" (to coin a phrase) something apart from the usual soloer mindset/character, or just a natural/inevitable extension of it when given a big enough canvas (Yosemite) to play itself out on? Its hard when viewing others soloing exploits to know whether its all the controlled rationalised activity we like to think it is, or whether there's an element of recklessness that we probably don't admit to, but is easy to hide for as long as we get away with it (I notice you're not dead).
-
Interesting question. The first thing that occurred to me was whether any of this generation will actually die climbing? Can't say I agree with the inevitability thing though, maybe I am naive.
I hadn't realised Dean was as good at wingsuiting as he was to be honest - the first 3 minute plus BASE flight for example. Though perhaps not as good as he thought. It's worth noting that whilst Stanley and Dean died flying challenging lines, Mario (Steph Davis' bloke) was not.
I wonder if the confidence borne from soloing at the cutting edge - where control is perhaps greater than it appears - leads to overconfidence in BASE etc - where control is perhaps less than it appears, even to the participant. Even Ron's worst injury was paragliding wasn't it?
Sad day though. Dean was a big inspiration to me even though I found him increasingly ridiculous. I guess some of the bullshit was less ridiculous in the context of California, but I still respect him for putting it out there and not being conformist. If he had been a bit more in on the joke he might have been the coolest climber ever.
-
Its hard when viewing others soloing exploits to know whether its all the controlled rationalised activity we like to think it is, or whether there's an element of recklessness that we probably don't admit to, but is easy to hide for as long as we get away with it (I notice you're not dead).
My guess would be that the people doing this sort of thing wrestle with that question too and probably never come to a definite answer.
-
The first thing that occurred to me was whether any of this generation will actually die climbing?
If I understand your question, then yes?
http://www.climbing.com/climber/john-bachar-1957-2009/
Yes, it's a tragedy, more so for those close to these guys than for themselves, but they were big boys and had a fairly good idea what they were getting theselves into, and died doing something amazing in a beautiful place, which most of the rest of us are unlikely to.
-
That's why I wrote 'this' generation. Death by climbing seemed pretty common in the previous generation (not least British mountaineers), although Bachar made it into the modern era.
I mean Osman - ropeswing, Reardon - drowned, Potter BASE. And our own Alan Mullin, who pushed the limits of Scottish winter soloing perhaps farther than anyone, but killed himself in a police cell.
-
.
-
I think there's a good discussion to be had here, perhaps somewhere else another time, but my feelings are that the "extreme" is a way of wrestling with what lies deeper. Deep Play (Pritchard).
It can take a long time to understand that "the line between terror and joy" (Jean-Christophe Lafaille) is less precise, less narrow, less defined than it appears. And yes, I believe those of us who flirt with that line, believe deep down, somehow, that we can be responsible for bad things happening. Or not - or that we once were. However, we do not want to live a life burdened by control and that is what we're trying to resolve.
The major rewards come from those moments when, in a perilous situation, we explore not being in control - to learn that chance doesn't always have to lead to disaster. Paradoxically, the game is set up in a way that forces us to relinquish control - a desire for meditation, as some have put it.
Dean Potter may not have died slipping off a highline, but I believe he really wanted a one inch webbing tape to be as wide as a sidewalk, and for him to still feel at peace there.
I don't want to reference my own stuff here, but lots of people think that extreme sports protagonists believe they're invincible, that it couldn't happen to them.
The opposite is true. On a hard solo, I'd set off after preparing myself for the reality that I might die - in full awareness of that fact. But I'd be aware of that possibility on a V Diff.
I'm sure Potter would have been the same. His death was not the result of recklessness, but of trying to make a very difficult to control flying machine even safer to use. Perhaps his own life experiences had yet to demonstrate that joy needn't be found in the absence of terror.
It's the life he could have enjoyed after finding some inner peace, that has been taken away.
I hope it's OK to say that here, and that his life was a celebration of his attempts to get there.
-
I hope its Ok to say that or we might as well all give up anything risky and just watch TV and likely die of a heart attack instead. Dean was one of a few climbers I've met who just seemed to be thinking and operating at a different level and he packed more in to a shortened life than most climbers would in several. I find the 'inevitability' stuff a bit odd for climbers.... we all roll the dice...we also don't say this as much with high altitude alpinists (when on risks per climb the odds are arguably stacked higher).
-
Excellent post DAVETHOMAS90, thanks.
The first thing that occurred to me was whether any of this generation will actually die climbing?
Michael Reardon was of "this generation". ("this generation" climbers in their 30-50s???)
Bjørn-Eivind Årtun. OK he was maybe not an A-list celebrity, but then again he should've been.
but I get your point.
ahh... now I get it, you mean "this generation of Yosemite climbers?"
-
As JB pointed out, Reardon drowned after being swept out to sea, not actually climbing.
-
As JB pointed out, Reardon drowned after being swept out to sea, not actually climbing.
He wasn't out for an evening stroll (http://www.alpinist.com/doc/ALP20/newswire-michael-reardon-missing-ireland) though...
He finished the two climbs and was waiting, on an algae-covered platform, for the big swells to pass by so that he could walk back over to me on the opposite side of the inlet. A rouge wave came into the inlet and curved rightwards as it crashed into Mike. He tried to stabilize himself on the platform but the water was too powerful and sucked him in. The current pulled Mike out 150-plus meters in mere seconds.
-
I find the 'inevitability' stuff a bit odd for climbers.... we all roll the dice...we also don't say this as much with high altitude alpinists (when on risks per climb the odds are arguably stacked higher).
I think if we all roll the dice mine (bouldering) are slightly more weighted in my favour than those who choose to pursue proximity wing suit flying!
Not sure how fatalities in alpinism would compare with wing suit flying when compared with the numbers of participants.
-
I hope its Ok to say that or we might as well all give up anything risky and just watch TV and likely die of a heart attack instead. Dean was one of a few climbers I've met who just seemed to be thinking and operating at a different level and he packed more in to a shortened life than most climbers would in several. I find the 'inevitability' stuff a bit odd for climbers.... we all roll the dice...we also don't say this as much with high altitude alpinists (when on risks per climb the odds are arguably stacked higher).
I think the inevitability comes into it due to the escalation in high risk behaviour from climbing to alpinism, from this to soloing, to BASE jumping/free BASE, to wing suiting.
It reminds me of shane mcconkey who was a great freestyle skier, who got into BASE jumping, then ski-BASE jumping, then wing suiting then finally ski-BASE jumping/wing suiting.
It isn't rolling the dice, as much as russian roulette with an increasing number of bullets.
I totally agree people should do what they want, but it is just a shame it leaves a lot of loved ones behind
-
As JB pointed out, Reardon drowned after being swept out to sea, not actually climbing.
He wasn't out for an evening stroll (http://www.alpinist.com/doc/ALP20/newswire-michael-reardon-missing-ireland) though...
He finished the two climbs and was waiting, on an algae-covered platform, for the big swells to pass by so that he could walk back over to me on the opposite side of the inlet. A rouge wave came into the inlet and curved rightwards as it crashed into Mike. He tried to stabilize himself on the platform but the water was too powerful and sucked him in. The current pulled Mike out 150-plus meters in mere seconds.
No but it was a wave that got him. A rouge (sic) wave can as easily get someone fishing, or taking photos or collecting shells.
-
No but it was a wave that got him. A rouge (sic) wave can as easily get someone fishing, or taking photos or collecting shells.
Don't know about yourself (beyond your sea-level traverse project, hope thats going well) but when I abseil down sea-cliffs, particularly when the waves are rolling, unlike someone soloing I attach myself with a multi-directional belay (https://www.flickr.com/photos/slackline/4798286489/) to ensure that rogue waves don't wash me out to sea. Its an objective danger that can be mitigated by using ropes and not possible when you are on your own soloing.
-
Kept rolling the dice, but what a life.
Condolences to is nearest friends and his family,
Well put Shark.
-
I can't think of a better place to hold this discussion, or a better time.
I was once somewhat over-committed Trimix diver (hindsight talking).
Doing daft things like hunting out the U533 and diving it, in stupidly deep water (143mtrs) in Iranian waters.
But, the imminent birth of my first child, and a near death boat explosion; frankly, brought me to my senses.
In truth though, I'd started to have doubts a few months before.
One of my diving Buddies, John Bennet, had recently broken the world record for SCUBA at 300 meters.
We'd dived the Energy and Determination wreck together shortly after.
Got drunk in Dubai.
He went back to Puerto Gallera (Philippines).
Then he was dead.
Just gone.
On a 45 Mtr dive.
And we'll never know why or how and he's never been found.
Scared me shitless.
Because I had basically rationalised away all the doubts.
Those dives took days of planning. We trained drills constantly, to the point where we thought we could control anything.
And surviving the near misses, just reinforced that sensation. Somehow, you delude yourself that you survived because you were good, not because you were lucky.
But you are not that good.
You could slip off a cliff tomorrow, walking the dog.
You could catch a Stingray spine in just the wrong place.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
You're experience sounds not too dissimilar to how Jimmy Jewel went Matt. His soloing made a big impression on me when young.
Condolences to family and all who knew Dean Potter, a life well lived by the sound of it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What a legend. Gutted he's gone. Loved everything he did. Read about him, watched films about him. Always thought that I'd live like he did if I had nothing to lose. Death is inevitable. The way you go isn't.There's no point hiding at home waiting to pass away in an arm chair. Really sorry for him and the people that loved him.
-
He always seemd a larger than life character, the kind that make the climbing scene what it is. I always had a respect/awe for/of him that came from sort of wanting to be able to be that free whilst knowing I'd never want to live like that.
Those dives took days of planning. We trained drills constantly, to the point where we thought we could control anything.
And surviving the near misses, just reinforced that sensation. Somehow, you delude yourself that you survived because you were good, not because you were lucky.
This confirmation bias and false positives are exactly what are being talked about by skiers wrt avalanches.
-
Death is inevitable. The way you go isn't.There's no point hiding at home waiting to pass away in an arm chair.
Andy, no offense really, but this is absolute BS.
No one's talking about hiding at home for fear of living. The thing here is putting one's life in serious and constant danger, with the impossibility of controlling all the objective factors involved, that could cause a tragedy.
-
Death is inevitable. The way you go isn't.There's no point hiding at home waiting to pass away in an arm chair.
Andy, no offense really, but this is absolute BS.
No one's talking about hiding at home for fear of living. The thing here is putting one's life in serious and constant danger, with the impossibility of controlling all the objective factors involved, that could cause a tragedy.
It might be a flippant way to put it but it is not BS. There are innumerable things which could cause your death at random points throughout your life, one of which gets you in the end. Life IS Russian roulette, you don’t get a choice about that. I think risk taking is in part a drive to feel in brief control of this awful feeling of waiting for terrible shit to happen. Ultimately life belongs to the individual to do with as they wish. Choosing quality over quantity is valid. The argument about impact on others is a separate one and hinges to some extent on honesty and choice. Spouses should have walked into the situation with their eyes open if the relationship is honest. Parents we don’t get a choice about having and we should not fundamentally dumb down our lives on their behalf. Children are a much trickier issue as they don’t get a choice, but if the alternative to having a risk taking parent is having a seriously depressed one then it isn’t a simple question.
-
It's an oversimplified cliché.
Between hiding at home and flying through rocky canyons or high-line slacklining solo, there's a vast field for alternatives.
I don't express any opinion on what Potter was doing here, I only want to point out that the alternative to his way of living is not just hiding at home waiting for the end.
Just this.
-
I think there is an interesting difference in activities that appear to be risky from participants or observers points of view and activities that are truly high risk (of serious injury or death) like BASE jumping or cave diving, where there is close to zero chance of survival in the event of even the smallest malfunction/mistake.
Climbing in most forms (excluding Mountaineering) appears to be high risk to many observers but as we know even soloing seems to be statistically low risk (for deaths) compared to many other activities. I remember reading that rugby and horse riding are two of the highest risk sports for serious spinal injury or death.
Another example is working for the fire service would appear to many observers to be high risk however the chances of dying in service is very low, due to modern equipment and strict methods of working. Risk assessments and Health and Safety do have it's benefits.
Another interesting point is before the earthquake in Nepal, climbing Everest was very high risk with I've read as many as 1 in 10 not coming back alive. I think this risk had dropped with the commercialisation of the big teams but I image it still remains high. Despite this many people were attracted to it, plenty of which who would not be classed as your typical 'adrenaline junky' types despite the risk be up there with some of the more typical 'extreme' dangerous sports.
-
It's an oversimplified cliché.
Between hiding at home and flying through rocky canyons or high-line slacklining solo, there's a vast field for alternatives.
I don't express any opinion on what Potter was doing here, I only want to point out that the alternative to his way of living is not just hiding at home waiting for the end.
Just this.
It's a sliding scale of opinion upon which you disagree with me. Whether or not we agree, it's far from the BS you suggest. People are far too quick to jump on the offensive here. If I thought I was going to die climbing I wouldn't do it. I would like to think that Mr P thought thought the same.
Anyway, can we keep this as a tribute page? I wouldn't like to think that one comment made has led to an argument.
(Edit:spelling!)
-
Andy I didn't want to sound offensive. I could have expressed my opinion in a more articulated way, but forgive me, I didn't. Nothing personal of course.
+1 about keeping the tribute page clean.
-
http://andy-kirkpatrick.com/blog/view/the_artist
RIP Dean.
-
I remember reading that rugby and horse riding are two of the highest risk sports for serious spinal injury or death.
Micromorts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort)
Small but Lethal by David Speigelhalter* and Mike Pearson (https://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue55/features/risk/index)
* Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge
-
I get what Andy is saying but I think it's in hindsight that we see it coming. Plenty of cutting edge climbers on high risk ventures are in that category, Andy included; they are all arguably artists (some more so than others). Reading one famous autobiography I was amazed a certain climber made it to adulthood, let alone survived his major climbing exploits.
It may well be that extreme risk takers should take pause at times but in the end risk in climbing is a continuum that can be hard to judge logically and all climbing fundamentally involves risk. "Where the Mountain Casts its Shadow" by Maria Coffey and "On the Ridge Between life and Death" by David Roberts are thoughtful works on the subject I would recommend highly.
-
"Where the Mountain Casts its Shadow" by Maria Coffey and "On the Ridge Between life and Death" by David Roberts are thoughtful works on the subject I would recommend highly.
Julian Lines Tears of the Dawn is also a great insight into the mind and motivation of a soloist.
A recent interview with him (http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=7319) is shorter and free.
-
I think there is an interesting difference in activities that appear to be risky ...
and activities that are truly high risk (of serious injury or death) like BASE jumping or cave diving, where there is close to zero chance of survival in the event of even the smallest malfunction/mistake.
And perhaps, therein lies the illusion.
From the right balance point, the line, the one inch webbing highline, will be a yard wide.
And that is closer to the truth, and what draws us back again and again.
Not avoiding death, or death defying for the rush. Choosing not to avoid it, and being closer to something else.
R.I.P.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-QuPTj-3wE
-
I think the distinction between risk and consequence is a useful one to make (I was told that Alex Honnold talks about this)
The risk is the chance of the consequence coming in to effect.
The consequence is just that - the consequence of the action if it goes wrong.
E.g Driving a car on a motorway the consequence of crashing at 70mph is terrible. However, the risk of crashing is fairly low. Ergo lots of people do it lots of the time, because the risk is so low even in consideration of the terrible consequences.
Bouldering - the consequences of falling off are often minimal. The risk of falling off is often very high.
Soloing a 50m V diff - the consequences are terrible, but the risk to a competent climber may well be minimal. cf. driving on the motorway.
I often like to tell myself that the most dangerous part of a soloing session is driving to the crag.
-
I think the distinction between risk and consequence is a useful one to make (I was told that Alex Honnold talks about this)
The risk is the chance of the consequence coming in to effect.
The consequence is just that - the consequence of the action if it goes wrong.
E.g Driving a car on a motorway the consequence of crashing at 70mph is terrible. However, the risk of crashing is fairly low. Ergo lots of people do it lots of the time, because the risk is so low even in consideration of the terrible consequences.
Bouldering - the consequences of falling off are often minimal. The risk of falling off is often very high.
Soloing a 50m V diff - the consequences are terrible, but the risk to a competent climber may well be minimal. cf. driving on the motorway.
I often like to tell myself that the most dangerous part of a soloing session is driving to the crag.
You've got risk a touch off. liklihood is the chance of a consequence coming int effect. Risk is the combination of the likelihood and consequence.
So in your example, driving on the motor way is low risk because of low likelihood of an accident happening. Bouldering is high likelihood of falling, but low consequence, hence, low risk.
Soloing risk is going to be relative to the competency of the climber and the difficulty of what they're soloing.
As a parent and someone who would like to live a very long time, I have fairly strict lines about tolerence for the "dying" part. Injury, sure. which is why I don't mind highballing. death-no. so no soloing a 50M v diff. Others draw their own lines for their own reasons.
-
As a parent and someone who would like to live a very long time, I have fairly strict lines about tolerence for the "dying" part. Injury, sure. which is why I don't mind highballing. death-no. so no soloing a 50M v diff. Others draw their own lines for their own reasons.
Yup. As you know, I live amongst perfect easy solo climbing terrain. It is very very tempting to pick up a pair of shoes, walk out of the door and solo a whole bunch of 25m 5.7 - 5.8 cracks. But I try to resist the temptation as I know that multiple repetitions x low-but-not-zero probability of a slip x high probability of death from a fall sums to an unacceptable long-term risk (for me, personally).
Yup. the other factor to consider in risk is how many times do you roll the dice. A 1% likelihood of screwing up seems low, but go do that 100 or 1000 times and the chances really start to add up.
-
As a parent and someone who would like to live a very long time, I have fairly strict lines about tolerence for the "dying" part. Injury, sure. which is why I don't mind highballing. death-no. so no soloing a 50M v diff. Others draw their own lines for their own reasons.
Yup. As you know, I live amongst perfect easy solo climbing terrain. It is very very tempting to pick up a pair of shoes, walk out of the door and solo a whole bunch of 25m 5.7 - 5.8 cracks. But I try to resist the temptation as I know that multiple repetitions x low-but-not-zero probability of a slip x high probability of death from a fall sums to an unacceptable long-term risk (for me, personally).
Apply the same logic to trad climbing and you would never onsight at the same level of risk applied to your 5.8 crack solo. Its climbing that is dangerous not just soloing. There is a finite probablilty you will slip and rotate unexpectedly off a boulder problem bang your head on a rock and die.
-
No there's not, not in the same way at all.
-
As a parent and someone who would like to live a very long time, I have fairly strict lines about tolerence for the "dying" part. Injury, sure. which is why I don't mind highballing. death-no. so no soloing a 50M v diff. Others draw their own lines for their own reasons.
Yup. As you know, I live amongst perfect easy solo climbing terrain. It is very very tempting to pick up a pair of shoes, walk out of the door and solo a whole bunch of 25m 5.7 - 5.8 cracks. But I try to resist the temptation as I know that multiple repetitions x low-but-not-zero probability of a slip x high probability of death from a fall sums to an unacceptable long-term risk (for me, personally).
Apply the same logic to trad climbing and you would never onsight at the same level of risk applied to your 5.8 crack solo. Its climbing that is dangerous not just soloing. There is a finite probablilty you will slip and rotate unexpectedly off a boulder problem bang your head on a rock and die.
Why would onsighting carry the same risk as soloing? For me they are very different. I won't climb beyond a certain height (relatively safe and either droppable, or down climbable) without getting in gear, which then changes the liklihood of a fall resulting in death. so ergo, not the same.
I won't take the .01% chance I'll fall and die while soloing a 5.8
I'll probably be willing to take the 0.00000000000000000000001% chance I'll die while leading protectable trad 5.8.
I'm willing to take the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that I'll die hitting my head on a low ball boulder, as that risk is more or less the same as the chances I'll die walking from my car into the office at work.
-
I had a stab at grappling with the diffrent types of risk in an article a few years ago.
A few thoughts about risk (http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1237)
-
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120302-extreme-sports-a-risky-business
A few interesting stats on this article
-
Should much of this topic be split into a more general discussion about risk?
-
Personally, and this may not make much sense, but I think we make a mistake in thinking any of this (going climbing etc.) is much about risk. Risk is, to some extent, intrinsic to the fact that we go climbing (as such its a by-product that has to be dealt with) but beyond that its pretty irrelevant and certainly not intrinsic to motivation, experience, pleasure, or reward - for me anyway.
-
Yup. the other factor to consider in risk is how many times do you roll the dice. A 1% likelihood of screwing up seems low, but go do that 100 or 1000 times and the chances really start to add up.
If your likelihood of screwing up is 1% it remains the same whether you indulge in the activity once, one hundred, a thousand or a million times.
You'd be unlucky to observe that event if you only indulged in it once but you'd expect to observe it once if you undertook the activity 100 times, ten times out of 1000 tries etc. etc. but the likelihood of screwing up remains the same and do not start to add up, you are however more likely to observe an event.
-
Yup. the other factor to consider in risk is how many times do you roll the dice. A 1% likelihood of screwing up seems low, but go do that 100 or 1000 times and the chances really start to add up.
If your likelihood of screwing up is 1% it remains the same whether you indulge in the activity once, one hundred, a thousand or a million times.
You'd be unlucky to observe that event if you only indulged in it once but you'd expect to observe it once if you undertook the activity 100 times, ten times out of 1000 tries etc. etc. but the likelihood of screwing up remains the same and do not start to add up, you are however more likely to observe an event.
You must be dynamite at a dinner party...
-
1-(0.99)^100
If You consider all 100 reps as a whole?
-
Yup. the other factor to consider in risk is how many times do you roll the dice. A 1% likelihood of screwing up seems low, but go do that 100 or 1000 times and the chances really start to add up.
If your likelihood of screwing up is 1% it remains the same whether you indulge in the activity once, one hundred, a thousand or a million times.
You'd be unlucky to observe that event if you only indulged in it once but you'd expect to observe it once if you undertook the activity 100 times, ten times out of 1000 tries etc. etc. but the likelihood of screwing up remains the same and do not start to add up, you are however more likely to observe an event.
You must be dynamite at a dinner party...
There's only a 2% chance that Slackers would be dynamite at a dinner party, you'd have to invite him to quite a few to observe that event. ;)
-
Personally, and this may not make much sense, but I think we make a mistake in thinking any of this (going climbing etc.) is much about risk. Risk is, to some extent, intrinsic to the fact that we go climbing (as such its a by-product that has to be dealt with) but beyond that its pretty irrelevant and certainly not intrinsic to motivation, experience, pleasure, or reward - for me anyway.
Not sure what you are driving at here. I think it is more than a by-product and for most drives how we play the game. Risk steers the type of climbing you do both generally and on the day and in selecting routes. I have always sought to roughly weigh up enjoyment vs risk and quickly ruled out alpinism for that reason. I get an amazing thrill from soloing but now only ration it as an occasional treat at Stanage. My best day soloing was in Pembroke when a prospective partner failed to appear. It was great until I came over all tired and got a bit stuck at the end of the day. Wont be doing that again.
I think it is traditional at this point in these sort of threads to link John Long's great article now on vimeo read by the man himself with a postscript:
www.vimeo.com/66605812
-
You must be dynamite at a dinner party...
:beer2: :pissed:
The distinction wasn't explicitly made and as I'm a statistician I think its worth making it clear.
-
I live amongst perfect easy solo climbing terrain. It is very very tempting to pick up a pair of shoes, walk out of the door and solo a whole bunch of 25m 5.7 - 5.8 cracks. But I try to resist the temptation as I know that multiple repetitions x low-but-not-zero probability of a slip x high probability of death from a fall sums to an unacceptable long-term risk (for me, personally).
I don't see how this is any different from driving. I solo every week, although generally on grit where the chance of death is perhaps lower (although not much different to the smoke bluffs). Whilst that increases the throws of the dice it also increases the competence level. 'What if you slip?' is a bit of a meaningless question. What if you suddenly lose control when driving? Does that happen? Not unless you suddenly lose concentration, which generally requires boredom, or distraction. I find soloing a pretty good aid to concentration, and I don't climb in such a style where one limb 'slipping' would be catastrophic. Plus, unlike driving, I don't get distracted by having to tune the radio, eat or find my son's dropped dummy whilst soloing.
I suspect it is more dangerous to dip into soloing as an occasional treat than it is to do it regularly. Getting tired and a bit stuck isn't something I've let happen for many years. No pressure and lots of downclimbing are the key, not a ticking mentality.
-
Plus, unlike driving, I don't get distracted by having to tune the radio, eat or find my son's dropped dummy whilst soloing.
Or meet a large person soloing the other way too quickly whilst on their mobile, eating and messing with their MP3 player.
-
I suspect it is more dangerous to dip into soloing as an occasional treat than it is to do it regularly.
Go on ...I'm listening
-
Having circuits you do regularly and know well makes a big difference. Not only are you not onsighting, you can gauge your form on the day by how things feel. The circuits are never the same but tend to include a few favourite warmups and benchmarks, as well as stuff I've not done or don't remember. It's not so much about having everything wired - but knowing where cruxes are and that there are no nasty surprises. I think it needs a different mentality overall - grades and ticks should not be important, just moving well whatever the grade and finding the right level for your form and the conditions. I have lots of off days but I can't remember ever having a bad soloing session really, e.g. last night where I backed off a HVS I used to do in trainers, but it was still satisfying to go up and come down competently.
-
A short tribute to Graham Hunt
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZehwcYq9JOw&feature=youtu.be
-
I should add I do quite a lot of formal risk assessment for fairly dangerous work but remain pretty cynical of the whole process. I see it as more of a due diligence arse covering exercise. As Rumsfeld so wisely pointed out, the known unknowns are hard to predict and the unknown unknowns are even worse. Too much risk control leads to a complacent workforce - as with airbags and driving. An idiot-proof environment encourages idiots. Some genuine risk encourages engagement.
-
As a parent and someone who would like to live a very long time, I have fairly strict lines about tolerence for the "dying" part. Injury, sure. which is why I don't mind highballing. death-no. so no soloing a 50M v diff. Others draw their own lines for their own reasons.
Yup. As you know, I live amongst perfect easy solo climbing terrain. It is very very tempting to pick up a pair of shoes, walk out of the door and solo a whole bunch of 25m 5.7 - 5.8 cracks. But I try to resist the temptation as I know that multiple repetitions x low-but-not-zero probability of a slip x high probability of death from a fall sums to an unacceptable long-term risk (for me, personally).
Apply the same logic to trad climbing and you would never onsight at the same level of risk applied to your 5.8 crack solo. Its climbing that is dangerous not just soloing. There is a finite probablilty you will slip and rotate unexpectedly off a boulder problem bang your head on a rock and die.
Why would onsighting carry the same risk as soloing? For me they are very different. I won't climb beyond a certain height (relatively safe and either droppable, or down climbable) without getting in gear, which then changes the liklihood of a fall resulting in death. so ergo, not the same.
I won't take the .01% chance I'll fall and die while soloing a 5.8
I'll probably be willing to take the 0.00000000000000000000001% chance I'll die while leading protectable trad 5.8.
I'm willing to take the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that I'll die hitting my head on a low ball boulder, as that risk is more or less the same as the chances I'll die walking from my car into the office at work.
I think your guestimates of risk are just way off and I think Shark has it spot on in his article. The stats from real accident, analysis show experienced climbers make way too many stupid mistakes on easier terrain, yet the concentrated focus of the skilled climber leads to much less risk (hence accidents) on hard bold stuff than we might expect.
http://www.friendsofyosar.org/safety/climbingSafety.html
Having run and been involved in student trips for nearly 2 decades the most likely trip for an accident was always font and although ankles took the brunt, I've seen heads whizz close past a rock enough times to know risk is real and good spotters are really important (I wear a lid now quite often, especially on my own).
-
I'm shocked he took his dog flying, glad he didn't this time
-
You must be dynamite at a dinner party...
:beer2: :pissed:
The distinction wasn't explicitly made and as I'm a statistician I think its worth making it clear.
Clearly
-
The stats from real accident, analysis show experienced climbers make way too many stupid mistakes on easier terrain, yet the concentrated focus of the skilled climber leads to much less risk (hence accidents) on hard bold stuff than we might expect.
From browsing Peak-area MRT reports a few years back, there are a shockingly large proportion of injurious accidents on well-protected climbs where the users have fucked up with theoretically safe gear placements, compared to, as you say, hard bold stuff.
Having agreed with that, I disagree that trad is risky - the safety system is well refined and works well, it's up to the users to use it well.
-
I think there's a good discussion to be had here, perhaps somewhere else another time,
It might not be the time, but the quality of D.Piddy's question and of the replies since then, show that it is the PLACE.
I think it would be worth splitting the thread though, even if it's a bit awkward, as this could be generally useful and informative.
-
Personally, and this may not make much sense, but I think we make a mistake in thinking any of this (going climbing etc.) is much about risk. Risk is, to some extent, intrinsic to the fact that we go climbing (as such its a by-product that has to be dealt with) but beyond that its pretty irrelevant and certainly not intrinsic to motivation, experience, pleasure, or reward - for me anyway.
I agree entirely, that's nicely put. Risk is a part of climbing, sometimes it enhances it, sometimes it is just to be dealt with, and occasionally it can be a small part of the motivation, but it is not the main part (although it might be for some people).
-
Having circuits you do regularly and know well makes a big difference. Not only are you not onsighting, you can gauge your form on the day by how things feel. The circuits are never the same but tend to include a few favourite warmups and benchmarks, as well as stuff I've not done or don't remember. It's not so much about having everything wired - but knowing where cruxes are and that there are no nasty surprises. I think it needs a different mentality overall - grades and ticks should not be important, just moving well whatever the grade and finding the right level for your form and the conditions.
You have justified why you feel comfortable doing what you do but not why the occasional soloing session is more dangerous - it is usually still OK to back off when onsighting or repeating something you haven't done for a while but like you imply the chance of getting uncomfortably committed on something is higher. Overall I still think the risks from frequent (routine) soloing vs occasional less smooth infrequent soloing are less. My outlook is biased by Paul Williams death. He had his trade route solos and was doing Brown's Eliminate for the third time that day IIRC. I drew my lessons from that.
-
Isn't Paul William's death an example of a very low percentage incident though? Hold breaking on gritstone?
-
I'm a bit confused Shark, are you agreeing with me or not?
My main argument would be that easy climbing is actually quite a different skill set to hard climbing. One might expect that redpointing 8c would make VS trivially easy, but actually it doesn't work like that. Making VS trivially easy comes from doing loads of mileage at S-HVS.
I never met Paul so can't comment. I've never figured out which hold broke either, though it does cross my mind every time I do the route.
-
JB, I believe you are rationalising the risk away as I mentioned earlier.
Yes, by training, learning, practicing, you reduce the risk to a lower level than the risk would be for a Novice, in flip flops, and three Martinis in the bank.
Train hard, fight easy.
Except the risk is only partly about you making a mistake and largely about "Accident" and that cannot be mitigated.
In other words, your skill set and experience enable you to down play the risk.
Essential if you are going to undertake a high risk activity, possibly, since paralysing fear is not going to be of much benefit.
I think looking at MR stats will be misleading, or any comparison of accident statistics, for that matter; because those stats will cover everything from "climbers" in flip flops falling off Snowdon, to consummate Pro's.
Before any statistic would be meaningful it would need to be correlated with an accurate number of people engaging in that specific activity.
In other words, how many people engage in Soloing/BASE etc etc and what are the accident rates within those sub groups.
And, if I'm honest, I do like the thrill; even now.
I will go and scramble up/down an unstable cliff, when walking the dog.
I do still put on a wet suit and fins to swim in the storm swells and practice climbing out onto rather unpleasantly sharp rocks.
I just delude myself that by toning down my climbing/diving etc activities I am being sensible.
In exactly the same way I rationalised the risk when I went all in.
I mean, come on.
A 3mtr boulder or Everest, we do it because we are scared, because we know we might get hurt, because we feel more alive dancing on that catastrophe curve than we do in almost any other aspect of our lives.
It takes will to put that aside for more mundane matters, family, responsibility.
And, there is always some resentment, peeking out from the dark recesses at the back of your mind, when you do.
Some people, just can't put it aside.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I am rationalising the risk yes, but I'm not so naive as to think it has gone 'away'. Otherwise I generally agree with you, but I do think the risk level of soloing tend to get overplayed - it carries a stigma of the extreme which isn't always warranted. I don't think me soloing VSs is any different to a VS climber scrambling - except that 'soloing' is a word associated with extreme danger, and scrambling isn't.
I have responsibilities now and I'm aware of them when soloing. But the reduction in grade is more due to a reduction in competence than 'toning it down'. I never toned it that high up in the first place.
And as I pointed out on the first page, Dean died BASE jumping, not soloing. But here we are discussing soloing again...
-
Isn't Paul William's death an example of a very low percentage incident though? Hold breaking on gritstone?
Exactly. One of the multitude of potential low % outcomes that tend to become higher occurring realised outcomes when and because you are a high frequency soloist.
Also I was never clear whether hold breakage was speculation or not.
-
I never met Paul so can't comment. I've never figured out which hold broke either, though it does cross my mind every time I do the route.
Mid height flat square jug on/near the arete if I remember rightly. Had never been suspect I don't think but I'd not been on the route for a long time before it failed so couldn't say if it started to sound hollow or similar before failure
-
A 3mtr boulder or Everest, we do it because we are scared, because we know we might get hurt, because we feel more alive dancing on that catastrophe curve than we do in almost any other aspect of our lives. its there.
For Everest at least, I've not read what Mallory's thoughts on bouldering were. :smartass:
This seems a balanced article summing up some of the points people are going over (and over)...
“It’s a type of alive — not like a party, but like being at one with the world. It’s being in tune,” he said. These athletes “may have more to tell us about what it means to be human than the rest of us.” (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-dean-potter-risk-motivation-20150518-story.html)
-
A short tribute to Graham Hunt
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZehwcYq9JOw&feature=youtu.be
The Other Man: Graham Hunt (1986-2015) (http://www.outsideonline.com/1982461/remembering-graham-hunt)
-
Clearly
You're getting the hang of this "stating the obvious" aren't you. ;)
-
A short tribute to Graham Hunt
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZehwcYq9JOw&feature=youtu.be
The Other Man: Graham Hunt (1986-2015) (http://www.outsideonline.com/1982461/remembering-graham-hunt)
Graham Hunt was a G who rolled silent like lasagna.
Quote.
Of.
The.
Year.
-
Graham Hunt was a G who rolled silent like lasagna.
Quote.
Of.
The.
Year.
The year being 2011. It's from a Lil Wayne tune.
-
Stats
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20632737
and Brain Chemistry
http://blog.alpineinstitute.com/2014/11/book-review-alchemy-of-action-by-doug.html
Yet this all loses the human angle.... in the end celebration of their lives following clear choices seems more apt to me than talk of waste. I'm sure we all know many who waste choices and live a life with no colour and many more (especially in the third world) for whom such choice would be the heights of luxury.
-
Stats
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20632737[/url]
Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=675782310691658474&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5) points to a PDF (http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Volker_Schoeffl/publication/45198321_Evaluation_of_injury_and_fatality_risk_in_rock_and_ice_climbing/links/0fcfd50cb8b47c715e000000.pdf) for those interested.
-
Isn't Paul William's death an example of a very low percentage incident though? Hold breaking on gritstone?
Exactly. One of the multitude of potential low % outcomes that tend to become higher occurring realised outcomes when and because you are a high frequency soloist.
Also I was never clear whether hold breakage was speculation or not.
In your previous post, replying to JB, you wrote this: "Overall I still think the risks from frequent (routine) soloing vs occasional less smooth infrequent soloing are less." Was that a typo?
Yes it was :slap: (more or less)
-
A 3mtr boulder or Everest, we do it because we are scared, because we know we might get hurt, because we feel more alive dancing on that catastrophe curve than we do in almost any other aspect of our lives.
:shrug: Safe to say we climb for very different reasons then Matt. If you'd have said that about being in a decent moshpit, then I'd have agreed. There is nowhere I feel so alive, I've broken bones, bled, feared for my life and enjoyed some of the most intense moments of my existence in one. Climbing is so far removed from that, for me anyway, and when I solo (at my trad onsight limit) it's the calmness, the focus and the pleasure that comes from that single state of mind. If there's any sense of fear, then I'm downclimbing.
Mr Popp spoke for me when he said " Risk is... pretty irrelevant and certainly not intrinsic to motivation, experience, pleasure, or reward - for me anyway".
-
Mr Popp spoke for me when he said " Risk is... pretty irrelevant and certainly not intrinsic to motivation, experience, pleasure, or reward - for me anyway".
I concur.
-
I want to hear Kelvin's top moshpits now!
-
A 3mtr boulder or Everest, we do it because we are scared, because we know we might get hurt, because we feel more alive dancing on that catastrophe curve than we do in almost any other aspect of our lives.
:shrug: Safe to say we climb for very different reasons then Matt. If you'd have said that about being in a decent moshpit, then I'd have agreed. There is nowhere I feel so alive, I've broken bones, bled, feared for my life and enjoyed some of the most intense moments of my existence in one. Climbing is so far removed from that, for me anyway, and when I solo (at my trad onsight limit) it's the calmness, the focus and the pleasure that comes from that single state of mind. If there's any sense of fear, then I'm downclimbing.
Mr Popp spoke for me when he said " Risk is... pretty irrelevant and certainly not intrinsic to motivation, experience, pleasure, or reward - for me anyway".
Right. How to respond without it sounding like some sort of personal attack?
Dunno. But this is not meant to be.
I do not possess the answers to everything in life (not very much, really; I just wonder about things and tend to do that out loud (or on a keyboard) and am rarely wedded to any particular position/stance (this irritates Dense greatly, which is nice)).
I think we might be at slight cross purposes, relating to the definition of fear and the rationalising of fear.
If you feel no fear, why do it?
You could perform the exact same physical movements, inches above soft mats, with a top rope and a team of spotters.
But, that wouldn't cut it, would it?
You need (I posit) to be in a position where you are controlling your fear and your environment and pitting your skill against the obvious danger. The relative difference in perceived fear between the Mosh pit and the rock face is dependent on the lack of control you exert in the former, I'd suggest.
It can't just be the climbing moves, the height and exposure must contribute to the satisfaction, surely?
Surely, the pleasure is in mastering the fear, to perform an act of skill and physical poetry in a dangerous place?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Fear and risk are quite different. For that matter, fear and height/exposure/etc are quite different.
-
For that matter, fear and height/exposure/etc are quite different.
They may well be different but height and exposure are related to the level of fear are they not? There are a series of other factors that will also come into play as well so the above is an oversimplification but the point stands in my mind.
-
You could perform the exact same physical movements, inches above soft mats, with a top rope and a team of spotters.
But, that wouldn't cut it, would it?
No it wouldn't, not at all.
The main reason being a team of spotters - I think it's quite possible that I'm generally anti-social when it comes to climbing well. And I emphasise the 'climbing well' part. I'm too easily distracted when there're people about, new people especially. Too gregarious and it affects my climbing dramatically. Add a new crag into the mix, with new views to look at and I may as well resign the day to a learning experience... I won't climb well.
My path into climbing was via scrambling, then winter climbing (solo) and I'm not much bothered by exposure. I can remember the moment I decided I needed to learn to climb - I was on what I now know as Groove Above Severe 4b up above Idwal Slabs, just following my nose and I got to the crux of that particular climb (unaware it was even a climb) and thought 'mmmm, better learn to climb I reckons, as there must be a proper way or move here but damned if I know what it is'. I was having a great day, so pottered up that bit once I'd worked it out and carried on over Cneiffon Arete.
And therein lies the reason I still like to potter about on my own - it's what I did when I first climbed. I like the isolation, the freedom from distraction, the focus, my own pace, the calmness. No distractions. It's also why I love bouldering on my own. Wandering around Font on my own last year was pretty magical. I put a rope on and instantly, I'm far removed from the reason I started to climb in the first place - to be able to do big mountain ridges on my own.
I can't comment on hard soloing but I have soloed at my limit happily, with no fear. It's the calmness, that being in the moment I enjoy. Where no past or future is in your head, just the now. It's like, dunno, amazing. It's not that 'flow' thing that people go on about, I guess you have to be a good climber to experience that but that's why I climb. To be able to move confidently and quickly in the mountains - fear hasn't nothing to do with it, at least as far as I can see.
*for fiend
Prodigy / Slipnot / Enter Shikari / Bullet for my Valentine
-
Is it really at your limit.
t your limit would be something like Gabe Regan taking several long falls on the lead on Moonwalk, then soloing it a week or so later.
-
Grimer's typically brilliant account of an encounter with Dean from the other channel:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=7367
-
For that matter, fear and height/exposure/etc are quite different.
They may well be different but height and exposure are related to the level of fear are they not? There are a series of other factors that will also come into play as well so the above is an oversimplification but the point stands in my mind.
They are related but not always, nor necessarily, linked. A few examples of mine:
Mother's Pride, Elgol - the top pitch, overhanging the sea after climbing through various roofs. Pulling over the lip of the concave top is like riding the crest of a sandstone wave. Big holds, good gear - no risk, no fear, but the height is adequate, and the exposure and position amazing.
Apprentice Wall, Galloway - highball slab, technical, precarious, sheer. Nothing to hit on the way down, good landing, 4 pads, it's not even THAT high. No height, no exposure, little risk, quite a bit of fear due to the precariousness of the climbing positions.
Double Doubt, Cummingston - short steep trad wall, steady climbing but shoddy gear, no height and no exposure. End up committed above a poor cam, a reasonable amount of risk - sprained or broken ankles at most, but a lot of fear, gibbering like an imbecile.
Peeping Tom, Baggy Point - solo (decades ago), when I was leading a grade or two harder at most. Long traversing a slab, smeary 5b 20m above the sea, 5a laybacking 20m above jagged boulders, on flakey rock. Height and exposure reasonable, risk very high, fear alarmingly little (more in retrospect now!)
-
Is it really at your limit.
t your limit would be something like Gabe Regan taking several long falls on the lead on Moonwalk, then soloing it a week or so later.
Good question - I had to think a while before answering, there's definitely two answers.
I've tried soloing E1 a few times (not gritstone) and every time, I've backed off at the crux. It's either been wet or a move that's marginal with the wrist. I've no doubt that if I'd been on a rope, I'd have probably fallen off anyway. I've only led a handful of E1s on lead and fall off HVS regularly - so pretty much my limit.
Hardly been on a rope in winter, so not sure what my limit actually is (tech 5?) but I've soloed down a short pitch of vertical ice with one ax and chopped holes to mono with as I went. Earlier the same day, put up a new 800m route in the Atlas that's supposed to be harder than the Hornli Ridge, that was soloed when I'd only ever led VDiff. In fact I only had about 7/8 days rock climbing behind me at the time.
Gritstone never feels less than precarious to me, I rarely solo on it. Safe to say I find it scary enough on a rope :-[
The Gabe Regan thing, sorry but I've no idea who he/she is but plenty of people throw a rope on things, fall off a lot and then solo them a week later - certainly on unprotectable gritstone test pieces. Not sure it's comparable with my climbing but perhaps it is, dunno.
-
Surely by definition it's not really possible to solo at your limit that many times unless you genuinely don't care about hurting yourself - if you try 20 things at a certain grade and get up all them then it's not your limit. If it is your limit then you'll fall off some of them them and break/die. (The exception to this logic clearly being that if you try harder/climb better soloing then your solo limit is harder than your roped climbing limit, so you could solo at your perceived (roped) limit numerous times)
-
Yeah - I'd agree with all of that Alex, except in that if you fall off, that's not your limit, you've gone past it.
*conditions/shoes/raised skill levels can all raise that obviously
-
Gritstone never feels less than precarious to me, I rarely solo on it. Safe to say I find it scary enough on a rope :-[
The Gabe Regan thing, sorry but I've no idea who he/she is
:o You don't know your gritstone history then, might be interesting to find out more.
-
Again, I think there is a huge downplay of fear in this.
It seems that what is being suggested is "I/We can solo up to the difficulty/exposure level I/We feel comfortable, but beyond that point/at the onset of less controllable fear, I/We back off (damn sensible, no criticism of that idea at all!).
Then an assertion that "the fear does not form part of the motivation", that it is for the feeling of focus, of control (of mastery?).
I posit, that what you are enjoying IS the control of fear (a very bloody natural thing to feel whilst climbing) and your "limit" represents the point at which that control begins to crack.
If, you can perform significantly harder moves on a Bouldering wall, over soft mats, then your "soloing limit" does not correspond to your " Climbing limit" and the difference is fear.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
if you fall off, that's not your limit, you've gone past it.
There are a few quotes at the start of Alastair Lee's Onsight...
"The grade people can climb is what they can on-sight"
"You've got to actually be good at climbing as opposed to just really strong or really brave"
But that is a whole different :worms: that is :offtopic: and has been done to death and is pretty boring, because it boils down to personal preference and being honest about the way in which you've climbed something.
-
Totally off topic.
Basejumping is not climbing at the end of the day :)
-
.
If, you can perform significantly harder moves on a Bouldering wall, over soft mats, then your "soloing limit" does not correspond to your " Climbing limit" and the difference is fear.
You dismiss that some moves are luck-dependent and that's why a sensible person would not try them in an exposed position.
A guy with from my hometown is known to have soloed his hardest redpoint. I see it not only as a demonstration of courage but also of a peculiar climbing style: no dynos, no rush, always I control...which makes sense as he is mainly an "alpine multipitch" climber who doesn't like to fall...
-
Basejumping is not climbing at the end of the day :)
The discussion has developed into one about risk and both those activites have inherent risks.
-
Matt - I think you just think differently to me.
I'd put jumping out of a plane alongside taking a whiff of poppers in the middle of a Slipknot circle pit, just as everyone is about to crash inwards. An element of danger resulting in a bucketload of adrenalin. A giving of yourself to the fear.
I'd put the enjoyment I get from climbing alongside dancing. I'd go find my space, soak the tunes up and enjoy the movement. 'Dance like no one's watching'. Just finding that groove and maintaining it...
That's me.
-
What the fuck are people talking about? A guy dies BASE jumping and now we're talking about dancing in the same light?
-
You'd know just how dangerous dancing was if you'd seen my moves
-
What the fuck are people talking about? A guy dies BASE jumping and now we're talking about dancing in the same light?
Makes sense to me. I've been equally injured dancing and climbing. And I spend less time dancing, so it must be higher risk. Because if n=1=me, then it must be right :yes:
-
What the fuck are people talking about? A guy dies BASE jumping and now we're talking about dancing in the same light?
Told you I annoy Dense...
-
Everybody annoys Dense, even Dense annoys Dense.....
-
I'm with Dense on this one.
-
Mr Popp spoke for me when he said " Risk is... pretty irrelevant and certainly not intrinsic to motivation, experience, pleasure, or reward - for me anyway".
I concur.
Me too.
No one has yet mentioned (though have skirted round) the term objective risk - that is the risk of something happening outside of the persons control. Eg the jug failing for Paul - a sudden gust knocking a motorbike rider sideways - a lump of ice falling on your head when winter climbing etc...
All in life has objective risks, but you can minimise these and their impacts.. E.G driving a car instead of riding a motorbike reduces them as you have steel and airbags etc.. All around you (and 4 wheels are more stable than 2 in many slippery situations).. Similarly, climbing a vs with gear as opposed to soloing reduces the chance of something bad happening if something goes wrong. Having three pads instead of one etc...
As Matt said - training and experience can reduce these risks as you make decisions not to do something based on experience (training being a way of re-in forcing or teaching experience)...
To throw into the mix, the classic definition of risk (already mentioned) is
Risk = probability x cost
Alternative is
Risk = probability x ( vulnerability / resilience)
Maybe the latter is better for climbing as toucan adjust your vulnerability and resilience by training, experience and protection. Hard to say more on my ifern keyboard...
-
Did rules, not risk,
cause contribute in Dean Potter's Base jumping death? (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/may/22/did-rules-not-risk-cause-dean-potters-base-jumping-death)
-
Did rules, not risk, cause contribute in Dean Potter's Base jumping death? (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/may/22/did-rules-not-risk-cause-dean-potters-base-jumping-death)
There is getting back on topic and getting back on topic. Thanks for that..I'd mised it... up with the best articles I've read on the subject.
-
Did rules, not risk, cause contribute in Dean Potter's Base jumping death? (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/may/22/did-rules-not-risk-cause-dean-potters-base-jumping-death)
There is getting back on topic and getting back on topic. Thanks for that..I'd mised it... up with the best articles I've read on the subject.
Yes, great article! Emailed the author too ;D
Thanks for posting that link Slackers.
Refreshing, balanced, rational. Motivating.
BTW, with reference to "caused", I don't think it was necessarily implying single cause.
-
http://time.com/3898371/alex-honnold-dean-potter-climbing/
-
Cedar Wright remembers his friend (http://time.com/3891093/dean-potter-cedar-wright-climbing/)
-
www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/sports/dean-potter-final-yosemite-jump.html
-
Bit smokey in here, isn't it.
[emoji22]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Tragic and beautiful...