|
majid_sabet
Oct 28, 2012, 9:38 AM
Post #1 of 10
(2301 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8222
|
Zion National Park Public Information Officer A B said H was an experienced climber and had completed several big wall climbs in the park.
H was leading the fifth “pitch,” or ascent segment, of the eight-pitch climb when he fell, B said. The fall pulled his anchor out of the wall, causing him to fall farther until he landed on the ledge, she said.
http://www.thespectrum.com/...-fall?nclick_check=1
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Oct 28, 2012, 11:17 AM
Post #2 of 10
(2258 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 14536
|
majid_sabet wrote: Zion National Park Public Information Officer A B said H was an experienced climber and had completed several big wall climbs in the park. H was leading the fifth “pitch,” or ascent segment, of the eight-pitch climb when he fell, B said. The fall pulled his anchor out of the wall, causing him to fall farther until he landed on the ledge, she said. http://www.thespectrum.com/...-fall?nclick_check=1
RIP and condolences to the family. A sad day for sure.
It's curious regarding the article's use of the word "anchor" though. I bet they mean protection, because if the anchor blew we'd probably be talking about multiple people injured or worse.
|
|
|
|
|
JimTitt
Oct 28, 2012, 11:40 AM
Post #3 of 10
(2249 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2008
Posts: 878
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Zion National Park Public Information Officer A B said H was an experienced climber and had completed several big wall climbs in the park. H was leading the fifth “pitch,” or ascent segment, of the eight-pitch climb when he fell, B said. The fall pulled his anchor out of the wall, causing him to fall farther until he landed on the ledge, she said. http://www.thespectrum.com/...-fall?nclick_check=1RIP and condolences to the family. A sad day for sure. It's curious regarding the article's use of the word "anchor" though. I bet they mean protection, because if the anchor blew we'd probably be talking about multiple people injured or worse.
Those things you probably call cams (or less likely SLCD´s) are correctly called frictional anchors by both the UIAA and CEnorm. What you call bolts are termed rock anchors.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Oct 28, 2012, 12:24 PM
Post #4 of 10
(2220 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 14536
|
JimTitt wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: majid_sabet wrote: Zion National Park Public Information Officer A B said H was an experienced climber and had completed several big wall climbs in the park. H was leading the fifth “pitch,” or ascent segment, of the eight-pitch climb when he fell, B said. The fall pulled his anchor out of the wall, causing him to fall farther until he landed on the ledge, she said. http://www.thespectrum.com/...-fall?nclick_check=1RIP and condolences to the family. A sad day for sure. It's curious regarding the article's use of the word "anchor" though. I bet they mean protection, because if the anchor blew we'd probably be talking about multiple people injured or worse. Those things you probably call cams (or less likely SLCD´s) are correctly called frictional anchors by both the UIAA and CEnorm. What you call bolts are termed rock anchors.
OK, but it still seems to be odd language considering that we, at least here in the U.S., don't normally use the word "anchor" for a climbing placement (otherwise normally known as "protection") when the climber is climbing. We usually use the word anchor for that fixed belay or top-rope high point.
Just saying, it's odd terminology and can lead to confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Oct 28, 2012, 1:40 PM
Post #5 of 10
(2180 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8572
|
The article has updated with names. My thoughts go out to Hurd's family.
At the end of the article, it said that this was the second death in Zion this year, but only the 7th since 1983, which is incredible. I doubt many climbing areas in the country can claim such a low fatality rate given how many people climb in Zion. Any ideas what might cause that?
|
|
|
|
|
vinnie83
Oct 28, 2012, 2:24 PM
Post #6 of 10
(2156 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2004
Posts: 103
|
Condolences to the friends and family of the climber.
Gmburns2000 wrote: OK, but it still seems to be odd language considering that we, at least here in the U.S., don't normally use the word "anchor" for a climbing placement (otherwise normally known as "protection") when the climber is climbing. We usually use the word anchor for that fixed belay or top-rope high point. Just saying, it's odd terminology and can lead to confusion.
I hear new climbers use terminology incorrectly all the time and it's probably a safe assumption that the journalist who wrote the article is not a climber. I doubt that the NPS spokesperson is either and he or she is probably paraphrasing what someone from the technical rescue team told him using words that he or she doesn't fully understand. Is it confusing and misleading? Yes, but come to think of it I've never seen an article about an accident from a non-climbing related source that wasn't and I don't think this is going to change anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
sandstone
Oct 28, 2012, 2:35 PM
Post #7 of 10
(2148 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 324
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: ...Just saying, it's odd terminology and can lead to confusion.
"Odd terminology" is a matter of context. The quotes came from the writing of a local newspaper reporter. He was spot on in choosing the word "anchor". Had he used the climbers jargon of "protection" he would have confused his readers.
If a climber tells a plumber he has a bad flapper, he can expect to receive a replacement part for his toilet, and not the tape he is seeking.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Oct 28, 2012, 2:50 PM
Post #8 of 10
(2139 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 14536
|
sandstone wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: ...Just saying, it's odd terminology and can lead to confusion. "Odd terminology" is a matter of context. The quotes came from the writing of a local newspaper reporter. He was spot on in choosing the word "anchor". Had he used the climbers jargon of "protection" he would have confused his readers. If a climber tells a plumber he has a bad flapper, he can expect to receive a replacement part for his toilet, and not the tape he is seeking.
You think so? When I read the word anchor I initially thought the anchor blew and wondered what happened to his partner(s).
I'm curious how the word "protection" in this case is less confusing than the word "anchor" to a person who doesn't know the difference, and how it is also less confusing to someone who does know the difference. Jim may very well be right, but that's definitely not how most (and I suspect the vast majority of climbers) use the word "anchor."
I was merely pointing out the confusing term used to help with the potential discussion / analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
crasic
Oct 28, 2012, 8:32 PM
Post #9 of 10
(2014 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2012
Posts: 18
|
Anchor is the unambiguous technical term for equipment placed in the wall to attach a climber/rope to the wall
Protection is jargon for an anchor placed on lead to protect a fall.
What climbers refer to as an "anchor" is really a belay anchor.
Avoiding jargon in a news article is good journalistic practice.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Oct 29, 2012, 5:10 AM
Post #10 of 10
(1928 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 14536
|
crasic wrote: Anchor is the unambiguous technical term for equipment placed in the wall to attach a climber/rope to the wall Protection is jargon for an anchor placed on lead to protect a fall. What climbers refer to as an "anchor" is really a belay anchor. Avoiding jargon in a news article is good journalistic practice.
you're partially correct there. Jargon indeed should be generally avoided by a journalist unless it is fairly easy to explain the word. The reason for this is that jargon tends to be more technical language that only a subset of the population understands. For example: coronary thrombosis is technical jargon for a heart attack.
All I'm saying is that the word "anchor" to the general public very likely isn't significantly easier to understand than the word "protection" is, and that both probably need some sort of one-sentence explanation. If that's the case, why not use the generally accepted term?
Anyway, this has turned into a dumb argument. The dude died. RIP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
