|
lostsheep
Dec 28, 2007, 11:02 PM
Post #1 of 38
(5597 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 2
|
Would doing a route that traverses just high enough for your gear to keep you off the ground if you fall, but not high enough for major injuries, be a good way to practice/learn trad placements? I have read plenty of threads regarding ways to learn but didn't find any on this. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 28, 2007, 11:27 PM
Post #2 of 38
(5561 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
lostsheep wrote: Would doing a route that traverses just high enough for your gear to keep you off the ground if you fall, but not high enough for major injuries, be a good way to practice/learn trad placements?
No. Practice placing gear while standing on the ground. Test the pieces you place by clipping a sling to the piece, and stepping into the string and bouncing on the piece. When you're confident that you can distinguish a good placement from a bad one, start leading dead easy routes with good protection, and place lots and lots of gear on lead. As you gain confidence, gradually increase the difficulty of the routes. Remember the Prime Directive: Never push your free-climbing skills and your protection skills to their limits on the same route.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
lostsheep
Dec 28, 2007, 11:39 PM
Post #3 of 38
(5547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2007
Posts: 2
|
I've done a lot ground placements and a couple of really easy leads. I was thinking of doing this in conjunction with ground placements. What specific problems do you see arising from this that I may have missed? A swinging fall can be really bad and that if the last piece blew I'd probably hit the ground. I was thinkin of trying to do this as low as possible, basically lower than jumping distance.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 28, 2007, 11:53 PM
Post #4 of 38
(5530 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
lostsheep wrote: I've done a lot ground placements and a couple of really easy leads. I was thinking of doing this in conjunction with ground placements. What specific problems do you see arising from this that I may have missed? A swinging fall can be really bad and that if the last piece blew I'd probably hit the ground. I was thinkin of trying to do this as low as possible, basically lower than jumping distance.
There's no point to it. Just test your placements at ground level. Once you're confident that your placements are good, and you understand how to build a belay anchor, just start leading easy routes. As you get better, increase the difficulty of the climbing gradually.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Dec 29, 2007, 12:46 AM
Post #5 of 38
(5479 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
On traverse you're protecting against pendulum falls, so if you plan to do a lot of traversing high up, then practice down low might be beneficial, as far as that goes.
|
|
|
|
|
docburner
Dec 29, 2007, 10:17 AM
Post #6 of 38
(5401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Posts: 192
|
If you fall you will probably hit the ground, so you might as well just test from the ground. If you are 10 feet high and 50 feet out rope stretch will be probably not go in your favor.
|
|
|
|
|
fresh
Dec 29, 2007, 5:08 PM
Post #7 of 38
(5347 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2007
Posts: 1199
|
lostsheep wrote: Would doing a route that traverses just high enough for your gear to keep you off the ground if you fall, but not high enough for major injuries, be a good way to practice/learn trad placements? I have read plenty of threads regarding ways to learn but didn't find any on this. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Dec 29, 2007, 5:38 PM
Post #8 of 38
(5327 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Low traversing doesn't sound any more productive than ground practice to me. I think a much better alternative is to do some top-rope aid practice. Not only do you get to make, judge, and test a lot of placements, but you also learn a bit about aiding, which is actually an important skill for trad climbing, at least for trad climbing on long and/or remote routes.
Don't get too fancy with the aid gear, because your goal is to be ready for improvised aid if you have to do it, and you won't be carrying four sets of sewn ladders... On the other hand, standing in slings improvised from dental-floss runners can get painful. The best compromise for practice is to use a single sewn aid sling. This provides reasonable comfort, but is also realistic in the sense that if you have to improvise aid in the field, you probably won't be able to rig up more than a single aider.
|
|
|
|
|
curator
Dec 29, 2007, 7:18 PM
Post #9 of 38
(5297 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Posts: 91
|
seems like a pretty bad idea....when you're that close to the ground if you fall and a piece blows you'll deck. The safest way to learn (in my opinion)....
Do what JT says, learn proper gear placement on the ground. Then do some mock leading on a climb you are familiar with that is well below your physical limit. It takes three people. Have the climb set up on TR, tie in and then try to imagine it's not there. Have your TR belay keep it pretty loose. Then rack up, tie into the lead line, get the other person to put you on lead belay, and lead the climb. Really try to focus the entire time on "what will happen if I fall". A competent trad leader is assessing risk for the duration of the lead. I've found that with most beginner leaders they often feel that a fall will be much more disasterous than reality. The great thing about this system is that you can test your pro. Get high off the ground, put in a piece, climb a few feet above it, and "fall" off. See what happens. Did the piece blow? If it did you're still on TR. No sweat. Another good thing about this system is that it gives your lead belayer practice at giving a good dynamic catch. I once saw a sketchy lead belay at the crag, recommended a better way, and the person replied "i've been belaying this way for 2 years and haven't dropped anyone". "Have you ever caught a lead fall". "well no". !!!!!
This is the best system for getting started and is currently industry standard in the guiding world. As your confidence builds and you start to trust your level of skill....lose the TR and go for it.
|
|
|
|
|
yokese
Dec 29, 2007, 9:07 PM
Post #10 of 38
(5264 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 18, 2006
Posts: 672
|
Trophy for curator.
That's exactly the post that I wanted to write (actually, I started it twice), but I'm way too lazy to.....
edited to add:
.... ah, yeah, to finish anything.
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Dec 29, 2007, 9:28 PM
Post #11 of 38
(5249 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
curator wrote: Really try to focus the entire time on "what will happen if I fall". A competent trad leader is assessing risk for the duration of the lead. I've found that with most beginner leaders they often feel that a fall will be much more disasterous than reality.
Hmm. I dunno about "what will happen" as such a primary focus. The fact is, there is alot to keep track of, and the consequences of falling is just one of the items on the list. In fact, I don't think the beginning trad leader accept the idea of falling at all; their mental energies ought to be devoted to a level of control that will eliminate falling as a possibility. There is a kind of double-think involved; you are going to stay in control and so not fall, but on the other hand you will arrange protection as best you can to prevent a fall from being serious.
In reply to: I've found that with most beginner leaders they often feel that a fall will be much more disasterous than reality.
A good attitude that shouldn't change until they have lots of experience.
In reply to: Get high off the ground, put in a piece, climb a few feet above it, and "fall" off. See what happens. Did the piece blow? If it did you're still on TR. No sweat. Another good thing about this system is that it gives your lead belayer practice at giving a good dynamic catch.
This really isn't all that practical.
In reply to: This is the best system for getting started and is currently industry standard in the guiding world.
I think it is of limited value (although I do think, as I said above, that the sames system, used for aiding, is useful). The fact that it may be the "industry standard in the guiding world" is because guides properly have to protect themselves from liability.
The things to focus on in mock leading, if you are going to do it, are protecting the belay with a bomproof early placement, recognizing and utilizing the best placements (typical beginner error: mediocre cam instead of bombproof nut), recognizing and utilizing the need for redundancy, location of placements and their effect on rope drag, the effect of rope motions on placement security, and the mitigation of these problems with slings and directional pieces.
I think one of the things that separates beginners from experienced climbers is the will and ability to climb back down and rectify errors. Yes, experienced climbers make fewer placement errors, but everyone makes them some of the time. The ability to recognize an error and the will to back down and fix it are among the qualities that distinguish experts from beginners, and perhaps the mock lead is a good place to insist on such behavior.
Another useful thing to practice in mock leading is the placing of gear in difficult positions. This may require climbing up, placing a piece, clipping it, climbing down to rest, and then climbing up again. Beginners tend to get stampeded in a difficult situation and can suddenly find themselves way above their last piece.
The real game only begins, of course, on the sharp end. Trad leading is a mental game, with various pre-programmed instincts screaming at you to do all the wrong things. A calm performance in the presence of this static is the hallmark of a trad leader. Mock leading and ground practice have their place, but finally you have to get out there and learn to deal effectively with the mental stress.
|
|
|
|
|
tedman
Dec 30, 2007, 4:16 AM
Post #12 of 38
(5193 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 237
|
as far as the mock leading, don't have the TR on too loose of a belay. I was doing this in the gym when I was first learning to lead sport, and had my TR belayer belaying loose enough that the lead belayer would catch most of my weight. We were quickly informed that this is a terrible idea as the loose TR belay rope can get wrapped around things (say your neck) and then shit hits the fan when you fall on it. So yeah, I think mock leading has its place, but testing the belayer or your pro dosnt seem to be one of them.
granted I have 0 experience with trad, but thought it was similar enough to chime in.
|
|
|
|
|
jaybro
Dec 30, 2007, 7:37 AM
Post #13 of 38
(5163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 441
|
Nothing wrong with it, in theory. Though traverses don't often pro like climbs. If you have one that works, by all means go for it! Like someone else said, they will be pendulum falls, but maybe that will help build your confidence for trying a vertical lead. Beats the hell out of ground placements (though that may have it's place); lets you see how the system works.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Dec 30, 2007, 7:54 AM
Post #14 of 38
(5160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
tedman wrote: as far as the mock leading,
FUCK THE MOCK LEADING!
get thee to the easy trad climbs, routes you know you would never fall from, and practice your protection system emplacement. For some, that means groveling on the 5.2's, for others the 5.7's. It's whatever's E-Z climbing is to YOU, allowing you to focus on the gear.
When proper deployment becomes second nature, up the difficulty of the climb, but no more so than you feel comfortable doing. When you no longer need think about protection systems, that is, they are now second nature, climb on difficult routes as much as you wish (whatever difficult means to YOU!) If you get scared, and cannot alleviate or control your fear, back the fuck off. It is a mark of experience to recognize when you are in over your head, and walk away to climb another day. Fuck what anyone else thinks of you for backing off, return later when your game has improved and send that bitch.
tedman wrote: granted I have 0 experience with trad,
THEN SIT DOWN AND STFU, n00b!
Keep everything rgold had to say in mind, ignore me. We're saying the same thing, but he's a bit more polite most times.
|
|
|
|
|
tedman
Dec 30, 2007, 7:04 PM
Post #15 of 38
(5128 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 237
|
hey bitch, why dont you sit the fuck down? I wasnt commenting on you or your mom, no need to get so fucking righteous about it. The only thing I was pointing out was the dangers of having a loose belay on mock lead, nothing else. Just because I have no experience with trad dosnt mean I cant see that an asshat like you is doing something dangerous because they overlooked something. Next time I notice someone with more experience than me missing something I'l be sure to just laugh at them for being a 'fucking n00b' when they deck rather than pointing it out.
on second thought, why did you even post? you said it yourself, you added nothing new to the conversation. Oh wait, you wanted to pump up your 12 year old ego by degrading someone else on the internet and getting +1 to your post count. Just cuz no one can see your face on the net dosnt mean you should be a fucking retard on purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Dec 30, 2007, 8:27 PM
Post #16 of 38
(5087 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
tedgirl wrote: hey bitch, why dont you sit the fuck down? I wasnt commenting on you or your mom, no need to get so fucking righteous about it. The only thing I was pointing out was the dangers of having a loose belay on mock lead, nothing else. Just because I have no experience with trad dosnt mean I cant see that an asshat like you is doing something dangerous because they overlooked something. Next time I notice someone with more experience than me missing something I'l be sure to just laugh at them for being a 'fucking n00b' when they deck rather than pointing it out. on second thought, why did you even post? you said it yourself, you added nothing new to the conversation. Oh wait, you wanted to pump up your 12 year old ego by degrading someone else on the internet and getting +1 to your post count. Just cuz no one can see your face on the net dosnt mean you should be a fucking retard on purpose.
'scuse me?
you profess to have exactly zero experience playing the trad-tard game, yet you think "mock" leading, even traversing low to the ground so that any fall or gear failure results in a deck fall, is a good way to go? Yeah, good way to go to the hospital. One would be best off falling on something where nothing would be hit, but overhanging 5.13's might be kinda tough to place gear on for a beginning trad-tard.
Mock leading is a waste of time, depriving the aspiring leader of an important experience, that of recognizing danger/fear and taking steps to mitigate that danger, dealing with that fear. I'm not advocating learning to lead on some 5.11, nay, I'm saying get on something YOU KNOW YOU'LL NOT FALL FROM. For some, that means 4th class, for others 5.9. For me, it was roped soloing on 5.7. There was little to no fear, but plenty of danger. Placing the gear frequently and well mitigated that danger. Having a good understanding of self-rescue techniques were I to end up in a situation where I would need them helped to allay any fears.
Here, have a drink on of me.
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
Jan 1, 2008, 6:38 PM
Post #17 of 38
(4999 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
Low traversing is is a good way to get a sprained ankle.
It is a very bad idea of a way to learn trad.
|
|
|
|
|
curator
Jan 2, 2008, 4:18 PM
Post #18 of 38
(4924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Posts: 91
|
Rgold...remind me again how aid climbing is better practice for lead climbing than "lead climbing". I'm sorry, but I'm a guide that makes a living teaching people to climb so when a math professor gets on here and tries to blow holes in my teaching methods I take offense. The reason I (and the industry as a whole) use mock leading to teach trad is not to protect ourselves but to protect the beginner leader, and because it works. I've seen many people start a two day clinic never having placed gear and by the end of day two feel confident placing gear and taking practice falls. How is it "not practical" to take practice falls? It takes the mystery out of the system. Until the first time you actually feel what it is like to take a lead fall on gear you placed it is hard to trust the system and your decisions may be fear based instead of logic based. Testing gear with lead falls in a safe environment allows the climber to learn what a good piece looks like and while leading what is actual risk and what is perceived.
And yes, there are a lot of things to think of besides "what will happen if I fall" It's a simplified way of saying "risk assessment". You suggest...
"I don't think the beginning trad leader accept the idea of falling at all; their mental energies ought to be devoted to a level of control that will eliminate falling as a possibility."
Are you teaching them to free solo? The beginner leader should be working on understanding and trusting their protection system so that they can make logical decisions on lead. Not fear based decisions based on "the leader must not fall"
This "mock lead" system is a great way to learn trad leading. I find it hard to believe that aid climbing will be more effective. Better let the climbing teachers teach climbing. I won't get on www.mathematics.com and pretend that I know how to teach algebra.
|
|
|
|
|
munky
Jan 2, 2008, 4:52 PM
Post #19 of 38
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2006
Posts: 358
|
Definitely. When I first started I made up boulder problems in which I aided(french freed) from peice to peice to check each placements integrity and practice placing from different stances. Have fun and work up to hard leads.
|
|
|
|
|
sactownclimber
Jan 2, 2008, 5:02 PM
Post #20 of 38
(4883 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2005
Posts: 216
|
curator wrote: Better let the climbing teachers teach climbing. I won't get on www.mathematics.com and pretend that I know how to teach algebra.
Hey Curator, though you and Rgold have chosen different career paths, I would encourage you to listen to his thoughts on the matter, as his is one of the most respected and reasonable voices on this site. Though of course no one knows it all, his ideas bespeak a wealth of experience as a climber that is difficult to discount.
Mock leading as you use it may work for your purposes, but I think you can definitely agree that it is not the only way to learn the skills necessary to becoming a successful trad leader. Rgold suggested using aid-techniques as a means of learning to differentiate between a good piece and a bad one, and I would argue that this accomplishes your stated goal of "learning what a good piece looks like" in a manner more effective that taking a mock lead fall.
When taking a mock lead fall, you are testing the quality of one or possibly two (if the first piece failed) placements, which gives you no information about the quality of any of the other placements on the route. Of course, one could theoretically take a mock fall on every single placement, but in my view that seems unpractical; the prime consideration here is likely to be that easier climbs are often the worst to take falls on. I suppose that theoretically one could find an entry-level climb that was fall-friendly, but in my experience, usually there are very few places on those types of routes which are fall-friendly.
However, by aiding your way up the same route, one has the ability to quickly and easily test the quality of every single placement on the route, simply by standing up in the aiders and bounce-testing the placement.
|
|
|
|
|
mitchgripgrabber
Jan 2, 2008, 5:02 PM
Post #21 of 38
(4883 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2006
Posts: 52
|
Maybe just forgo the rope and traverse and place gear. I used to spend alot of time traversing and would carry a few pieces and slings and practice placing pieces and tying off things. Familiarity with the gear is good and it doesn't have to be stressful. I would also wait til I got really pumped and try to build belays and place gear. traversing with a rope low to ground seems like trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
saxfiend
Jan 2, 2008, 5:38 PM
Post #22 of 38
(4853 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Posts: 1208
|
curator wrote: I'm a guide that makes a living teaching people to climb so when a math professor gets on here and tries to blow holes in my teaching methods I take offense. [snip] Better let the climbing teachers teach climbing. I won't get on www.mathematics.com and pretend that I know how to teach algebra.
Richard, if I'd known you were one of those pesky math professor types, I don't know if I'd have climbed with you!
JL
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jan 2, 2008, 5:48 PM
Post #23 of 38
(4843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
Sax, did you not end up limping off with a bit of a muscle pull? Next time you'll know better than to cast your lot with one us ivory-tower types.
In reply to: I'm sorry, but I'm a guide that makes a living teaching people to climb so when a math professor gets on here and tries to blow holes in my teaching methods I take offense.
Well, I didn't mean to offend. On the other hand, you have no business being offended. In every area I know of, there are usually pretty lively discussions about appropriate teaching methods, and it is fairly rare for anyone to assert that because they are a teacher, they automatically are in posession of the best approaches. You yourself said, "The safest way to learn (in my opinion)...." suggesting by that parenthetical remark that you recognize there might be other opinions. Why then, do you go to the extreme of "taking offense" when one of those anticipated opinions surfaces?
Ultimately, the value of these opinions will be decided, not by who has them (mathematician, engineer, student, professional climber, construction worker or guide), but by how convincing the arguments are in support of them. This is as it should be, and taking offense at a process that can only lead to a fuller understanding of the issues for everyone involved is not the way to enlightenment.
As a footnote, I guided myself for five years, so even if I am a math professor, I am also one of your colleagues. Also, I gave a long list of things to work on in a mock leading situation, things you never mentioned and didn't acknowlege in your "offended" post. Perhaps some of these points are useful?
In reply to: remind me again how aid climbing is better practice for lead climbing than "lead climbing"
OK, but what part(s) of my fairly extensive description do you either not understand or take issue with?
In reply to: How is it "not practical" to take practice falls?
Outdoors? On real rock? How many practice falls does someone actually take? One on every placement? How big a fall? There are often things to run into on the kind of moderate climbs people would be practicing on.
Furthermore, the upper belayer has to give the right amount of slack in the upper belay, meaning that they have to correctly estimate the actual fall, the additional distance fallen from any slack in the lead rope, the motion of the leader belayer, the stretch in the lead rope, and any slippage in the leader belayer's belay.
Another issue is whether the upper belay can always be directly above the tested protection piece. If it is not, then it will distort the nature of the fall onto that piece, either introducing a pendulum that wouldn't have happened, or eliminating a pendulum that would have happened (which is more of a problem for learning about falls).
I suspect that chances are the upper belayer will underestimate the real fall distance and so participate in catching the leader fall, leading to a faulty impression about the nature of leader falls for both mock leader and belayer. Because of the injury potential even with an upper belay, I suspect the whole process is probably carried out only for very short falls, and not on every piece placed, and I'm not sure that what you learn from this is what you need to have in mind in the real world.
In reply to: I've seen many people start a two day clinic never having placed gear and by the end of day two feel confident placing gear and taking practice falls.
That's nice. But we don't know whether their new-found confidence is actually justified by their level of experience, and if it isn't, then they are in more danger than they were before.
In reply to: Until the first time you actually feel what it is like to take a lead fall on gear you placed it is hard to trust the system and your decisions may be fear based instead of logic based.
There is a purpose to fear. The trick is not to replace it with faulty logic, which doesn't lead to any better decisions than fear, and in some cases worse. I'm not convinced that a few short falls with an upper belay backup which may have mitigated the fall severity provides a genuinely sound basis for logical choices.
In reply to: You suggest..."I don't think the beginning trad leader accept the idea of falling at all; their mental energies ought to be devoted to a level of control that will eliminate falling as a possibility." Are you teaching them to free solo? The beginner leader should be working on understanding and trusting their protection system so that they can make logical decisions on lead. Not fear based decisions based on "the leader must not fall"
First of all, almost every natural lead has at least one "leader must not fall" zone. You cannot eliminate them. The aspiring leader must learn to manage fear, but it is control, not understanding and trusting their protection, that is the essential ingredient. Second of all, the beginning leader is unlikely to properly understand their protection, mock leading or no. The "understanding" they have, the "trust" that comes from it, and so the "logical conclusions" based on it are all quite possibly misguided. This is something the beginning leader needs to understand, and the way to deal with it, in addition to building some redundancy into their protection system, is to take the position that falling is not an option.
It is only relatively recently in the history of climbing that not falling has been an option for anyone. I don't think beginners should be making "logical decisions" that include falling as one of the options.
In reply to: Better let the climbing teachers teach climbing. I won't get on www.mathematics.com and pretend that I know how to teach algebra.
I'm sure algebra students will thank you for that. The fact of the matter is that most climbers, especially those who have climbed for a long time, have also spent a fair amount of time teaching climbing. Some of us may have done more teaching than some of the "teachers," whether or not we were or are guides. We know something about it and have opinions about it, which we share with others on sites like this. By all means take issue with our conclusions, but do so by providing appropriate arguments, not by demanding uncritical respect for a purported monopoly on authority as a "teacher of climbing."
(This post was edited by rgold on Jan 2, 2008, 5:55 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
curtis_g
Jan 2, 2008, 6:33 PM
Post #24 of 38
(4819 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 594
|
curator did write a very nice reply.
call me crazy but in my first two outings I set a few bomber TR anchors and just started leading some easy routes. 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.9 were my firsts.
I think there's a much bigger stigma about trad than there needs to be and, despite learning the intricacies of active pro like hexes, tricams and cams, most placements are pretty easy to judge, and if one isn't, double it up...you're starting on an east route anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 2, 2008, 7:22 PM
Post #25 of 38
(4788 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
rgold wrote: curator wrote: I've seen many people start a two day clinic never having placed gear and by the end of day two feel confident placing gear and taking practice falls. That's nice. But we don't know whether their new-found confidence is actually justified by their level of experience, and if it isn't, then they are in more danger than they were before. In reply to: Until the first time you actually feel what it is like to take a lead fall on gear you placed it is hard to trust the system and your decisions may be fear based instead of logic based. There is a purpose to fear. The trick is not to replace it with faulty logic, which doesn't lead to any better decisions than fear, and in some cases worse. I'm not convinced that a few short falls with an upper belay backup which may have mitigated the fall severity provides a genuinely sound basis for logical choices.
Bingo. I've seen a number of these so-called leaders you schools pump out, who when they run into the *real* risks of leading, entirely mis-judge their ability to really lead.
The problem is that they think they should be able to lead at the level you put them on when mock-leading in the classes. This (presumably because the falling is safer) is steep stuff, way too close to their actual ability levels. Then, one of two things happens to this poor pseudo-leader on an early real lead
1- His or her fear level kicks in (a healthy response) and they wind up backing off. Sadly, they then kick themselves, and don't understand why they can't do it. Their ego takes a big blow, and often they give up on leading trad, thinking "oh well, maybe it's not for me". They should be mad at you guys, not at themselves! You're the ones who led them astray. This is the best response, as it sometimes leads to the proto-leader simply going back to square one, and doing easy leads with the understanding that they don't really know what they're doing yet. It's a shame they had to have you injure their pride, and take their money, but I'm sure this student got plenty of other helpful tips and whatnot from the leading class, so no doubt it's a net gain.
2 - The second response is far worse. This leader does not realize that he or she is missing all kinds of necessary skills, but keeps going blithely on harder and harder climbs until he gets hurt. I've only seen that one once, but he, too, gave up the sport. I probably would, too, if my image of climbing got built up so high on such a false premise, leading to my serious injury.
I think mock leading is at best, useless, and at worst, it does a serious disservice to the prospective leader.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
