|
theguy
Sep 20, 2011, 3:11 AM
Post #26 of 46
(5409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2004
Posts: 469
|
potreroed wrote: The only way to survive soloing at that level is to eventually quit doing it. Look at Derek Hersey, John Bachar and Michael What's-his-name. The odds don't seem great, but Peter Croft seems to have beaten them so far. Of course, he is Canadian ;)
|
|
|
|
|
potreroed
Sep 20, 2011, 3:16 AM
Post #27 of 46
(5405 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1454
|
theguy wrote: potreroed wrote: The only way to survive soloing at that level is to eventually quit doing it. Look at Derek Hersey, John Bachar and Michael What's-his-name. The odds don't seem great, but Peter Croft seems to have beaten them so far. Of course, he is Canadian ;) Is he still doing any serious soloing?
|
|
|
|
|
theguy
Sep 20, 2011, 3:21 AM
Post #28 of 46
(5405 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2004
Posts: 469
|
crashkickave wrote: sounds like a soloing accident Ah, the slippery slope (in Michael Reardon's case, literally). Though Reardon wasn't climbing at the time, would a trad climber have been roped at the point when Reardon was swept away? If a roped climber would also have taken his rope off when he topped out as Bachar did, would that be a soloing accident? If a fee-soloer is in a car-crash on the way to/from the cliff, is that a soloing accident? Or does it only count as a soloing accident on the way back, since he hadn't actually free-soloed until then? Anyone want to conclusively address at what point a zygote becomes a person while we're busy with certitudes? And just to keep it on topic, this zygote would free-solo later in life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Sep 20, 2011, 11:44 AM
Post #30 of 46
(5355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
potreroed wrote: moose_droppings wrote: potreroed wrote: Sheldon wrote: crashkickave wrote: Dumbest and coolest thing I've seen in a while. Dumber and cooler than that time we had unprotected butt sex? And PotreroEd, Michael Reardon drowned. He drowned while soloing around on some sea cliffs. No, he drowned after being washed off of where he was standing on flat ground near the bottom of some cliffs by a freak wave. Did somebody actually witness what happened? He was alone on the ledge and prolly had to do some kind of climbing, either up, down or traversing to get there. His photographer was there, but he wasn't very good at taking money shots. He couldn't get shots of Reardon on the crux of Romantic Warrior, the crux of Equinox, or the crux of The Pirate, so it's not surprising that he missed the Big Wave, too.
|
|
|
|
|
crashkickave
Sep 20, 2011, 1:10 PM
Post #31 of 46
(5338 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2011
Posts: 24
|
moose_droppings wrote: theguy wrote: If a fee-soloer is in a car-crash on the way to/from the cliff, is that a soloing accident? That would be, killed in a car crash while free soloing.
|
|
|
|
|
potreroed
Sep 20, 2011, 5:04 PM
Post #32 of 46
(5302 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1454
|
moose_droppings wrote: So...... If your on top of a route, anchor cleaned, roped coiled and your getting ready to do the walk off when a rock clips you and knocks you off the cliff, we should say that you got killed soloing? You weren't using a rope at that point in time and you were near a cliff. Sounds like something some reporter would say, not a climber. If I was all alone, yes, I would consider it a soloing accident.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Sep 20, 2011, 6:06 PM
Post #34 of 46
(5285 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
camhead wrote: moose_droppings wrote: From what I've read they figured that he was hit in the head by rockfall after topping out, knocking him down the route. That's what was deduced from evidence found. citation? Quote from Jeff Lowe; "Well, Paola, you were obviously a great match for John's mental strength and honesty. How anyone could read the facts of the accident as you've presented them and not conclude that to a high degree of certainty that John was first hit in the head by a falling stone, and only after that fell to the ground, is beyond me. The rope - or no rope in this case - would have had no bearing on the outcome. John's death should probably be attributed to stonefall rather than a free-soloing fall. Thank you again for your grace and strength." Or you can read the whole thread here.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Sep 20, 2011, 6:15 PM
Post #35 of 46
(5280 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
potreroed wrote: moose_droppings wrote: So...... If your on top of a route, anchor cleaned, roped coiled and your getting ready to do the walk off when a rock clips you and knocks you off the cliff, we should say that you got killed soloing? You weren't using a rope at that point in time and you were near a cliff. Sounds like something some reporter would say, not a climber. If I was all alone, yes, I would consider it a soloing accident. In your 1st post in this thread when you spoke of Bachar and Reardon you were putting it in the context of dying while free soloing, as is this is what the whole thread is about. There is no way, if what they're saying is true, that he died while free soloing. Same goes for Reardon.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Sep 20, 2011, 6:20 PM
Post #36 of 46
(5274 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
moose_droppings wrote: camhead wrote: moose_droppings wrote: From what I've read they figured that he was hit in the head by rockfall after topping out, knocking him down the route. That's what was deduced from evidence found. citation? Quote from Jeff Lowe; "Well, Paola, you were obviously a great match for John's mental strength and honesty. How anyone could read the facts of the accident as you've presented them and not conclude that to a high degree of certainty that John was first hit in the head by a falling stone, and only after that fell to the ground, is beyond me. The rope - or no rope in this case - would have had no bearing on the outcome. John's death should probably be attributed to stonefall rather than a free-soloing fall. Thank you again for your grace and strength." Or you can read the whole thread here. That's not a citation. that's someone on the internet (albeit Jeff fricking Lowe) speculating. What WERE the "facts of the accident" that Lowe is talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Sep 20, 2011, 6:29 PM
Post #37 of 46
(5270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
camhead wrote: moose_droppings wrote: camhead wrote: moose_droppings wrote: From what I've read they figured that he was hit in the head by rockfall after topping out, knocking him down the route. That's what was deduced from evidence found. citation? Quote from Jeff Lowe; "Well, Paola, you were obviously a great match for John's mental strength and honesty. How anyone could read the facts of the accident as you've presented them and not conclude that to a high degree of certainty that John was first hit in the head by a falling stone, and only after that fell to the ground, is beyond me. The rope - or no rope in this case - would have had no bearing on the outcome. John's death should probably be attributed to stonefall rather than a free-soloing fall. Thank you again for your grace and strength." Or you can read the whole thread here. That's not a citation. that's someone on the internet (albeit Jeff fricking Lowe) speculating. What WERE the "facts of the accident" that Lowe is talking about? There in the thread. I have in no way said with certainty that his is what happened. I have only said that I've read what others believe and asserted that if it is the way others say, then one cannot attribute his death by free soloing.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Sep 20, 2011, 6:36 PM
Post #38 of 46
(5262 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
Hey crashkickave, what did you delete your post for. Anyone else catch it?
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Sep 20, 2011, 9:10 PM
Post #39 of 46
(5230 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
potreroed wrote: The only way to survive soloing at that level is to eventually quit doing it. Look at Derek Hersey, John Bachar and Michael What's-his-name. The only way to survive doing anything at any level is to eventually quit doing it. Last time I checked, the lifetime mortality for all activities was still 100%
|
|
|
|
|
damienclimber
Sep 21, 2011, 5:54 AM
Post #40 of 46
(5179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2011
Posts: 313
|
camhead wrote: moose_droppings wrote: From what I've read they figured that he was hit in the head by rockfall after topping out, knocking him down the route. That's what was deduced from evidence found. citation? wow, you sound like jt512
|
|
|
|
|
crashkickave
Sep 21, 2011, 5:34 PM
Post #41 of 46
(5144 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2011
Posts: 24
|
i meant to hit quote but i hit reply instead
|
|
|
|
|
potreroed
Sep 21, 2011, 8:15 PM
Post #43 of 46
(5091 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1454
|
No disrespect intended, I just couldn't remember his last name at the moment. I apologize if anyone was offended. In spite of the arguments and hair-splitting I stand by my comment: if you keep soloing at a high level, sooner or later something is bound to go wrong. I know a number of climbers who used to solo up and down 5.11's but gave it up and are glad they did. I myself used to solo up to 5.10 but gave it up after a couple of close calls.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Sep 22, 2011, 3:53 AM
Post #44 of 46
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
potreroed wrote: In spite of the arguments and hair-splitting I stand by my comment: if you keep soloing at a high level, sooner or later something is bound to go wrong. I know a number of climbers who used to solo up and down 5.11's but gave it up and are glad they did. I myself used to solo up to 5.10 but gave it up after a couple of close calls. No one can climb at a “high level” indefinitely, no matter the discipline. If people are honest with themselves and moderate the level at which they solo as their overall abilities change, I doubt their death rates will be significantly higher than any other climbers. Somewhat higher sure, but not significantly.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Sep 22, 2011, 10:52 AM
Post #45 of 46
(5032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
notapplicable wrote: potreroed wrote: In spite of the arguments and hair-splitting I stand by my comment: if you keep soloing at a high level, sooner or later something is bound to go wrong. I know a number of climbers who used to solo up and down 5.11's but gave it up and are glad they did. I myself used to solo up to 5.10 but gave it up after a couple of close calls. No one can climb at a “high level” indefinitely, no matter the discipline. If people are honest with themselves and moderate the level at which they solo as their overall abilities change, I doubt their death rates will be significantly higher than any other climbers. Somewhat higher sure, but not significantly. I agree, but what does "high level" mean? Honnold is a 5.14+ sport climber, a vee-double-digit boulderer. So, when he solos even at his highest levels (I think that Phoenix is his hardest? 13a?), it is roughly the equivalent of 5.11+ climber soloing 5.10a. Not easy, but not what we would call reckless, either. For the most part, soloists are not soloing at their physical limits. Dereck Hersey was one of the few who did, as I recall reading in his profile in the book "The High Lonesome."
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Sep 22, 2011, 12:42 PM
Post #46 of 46
(5022 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
camhead wrote: notapplicable wrote: potreroed wrote: In spite of the arguments and hair-splitting I stand by my comment: if you keep soloing at a high level, sooner or later something is bound to go wrong. I know a number of climbers who used to solo up and down 5.11's but gave it up and are glad they did. I myself used to solo up to 5.10 but gave it up after a couple of close calls. No one can climb at a “high level” indefinitely, no matter the discipline. If people are honest with themselves and moderate the level at which they solo as their overall abilities change, I doubt their death rates will be significantly higher than any other climbers. Somewhat higher sure, but not significantly. I agree, but what does "high level" mean? Honnold is a 5.14+ sport climber, a vee-double-digit boulderer. So, when he solos even at his highest levels (I think that Phoenix is his hardest? 13a?), it is roughly the equivalent of 5.11+ climber soloing 5.10a. Not easy, but not what we would call reckless, either. For the most part, soloists are not soloing at their physical limits. Dereck Hersey was one of the few who did, as I recall reading in his profile in the book "The High Lonesome." I think the only reasonable way to define it would be in relation the individuals onsight limit. Beyond that, it's all very subjective.
(This post was edited by notapplicable on Sep 22, 2011, 12:45 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|