Clicked on this because a friend of mine from high school died while free soloing, and was shocked to see the article is about him! Good dude. Miss that guy. Still think about him often. It was really nice to get to learn about some parts of his life I hadn’t known about.
The thing that I fundamentally don't understand about free soloing is that it's only skill based to a point.
You will eventually, as in the article, hit a loose hold and fall. When that happens you probably die and it wasn't due to anything you could have prevented.
I feel like you and all the people replying to you are completely missing the obvious. To someone who has been depressed for many years, for someone who literally (according the article) contemplated jumping of the roof of a 10 story building, "probably dying at some point" is not a deal-breaker or even all that much of a downside per se.
We're all going to die at some point, and while most/many of us might want to delay that inevitability as much as possible, I don't think it's warranted at all to assume that the same premise applies to every single one of us. This guy realized that the only thing in life he could truly enjoy was climbing rocks. Do we really need to fault him for deciding to then just do that thing until fate eventually catches up as it always does?
Sure, it may be rough on the people whose lives they intersect with, but provided they're not a parent raising a child/children/etc, acceptance of one another for who we are is all that remains. Personally, I'd take short-lived good company over long-lived mediocre company any day.
> is not a deal-breaker or even all that much of a downside per se.
Close, but I don't think you quite get it yet.
It's not about "no downside"! That completely misunderstands. It's about a HUGE upside. It dials in your mental space and all the negative thoughts flood away. You're present in the moment. It's like being on a hard drug, but you feel clean and clear-headed instead of hung over afterward. You feel a lot better about life for days or even weeks at a time. You do it because NOT doing it might just kill you. Free solo today, or shoot yourself in the back of your car at the firepit tonight. And it's not about the risk, and it's not adernaline. It's the focus and calm. Does that make sense? I think it's really hard to understand if you haven't experienced suicidal thoughts for most of your life.
I haven't talked to very many free soloists who haven't made the point that they're horrendously depressed/suicidal and that they do it to live, not to die. Sometimes. Normally the ones who do "quite safe soloing" -- way below their grade, on well-known routes, etc. etc.
The article isn't just about Austin. It's about a lot of people. And not just climbers. Similar dark shit in skiing, mountaineering, dirt biking, and so on.
> Personally, I'd take short-lived good company over long-lived mediocre company any day.
I've never met an irresponsible soloist who wasn't a beautiful soul.
It sounds both quite beautiful but also quite sad at the same time. I feel like it describes my experience when riding a motorcycle. Not as high as climbing, I guess, but much easier to add to any day of the week for short or long runs.
I owned a motorcycle for some years, but then sold it. Years later, when I got diagnosed with cancer*, I broke up with my then girlfriend (not a healthy relationship) and bought a new 1000ccm sports bike. That was a big tipping point in my life. I went from depressive moments with thoughts of "I want to die" to depressive moments of "I hate this, I want out, but I want to live". The motorcycle gives me freedom I don't feel in a car, makes my head clear up, and I feel happier after. I guess most of the change in thought patterns was because of the Cancer looking-over-the-edge-at-death experience, but the motorcycle adds life quality in daily life that is worth the risk. So, a bit like climbing? *shrug*
It's interesting that you mention it. I'm interested ocean sailing simply becuase it gives me something to actually focus on and do. I feel that if I'm not actively struggling against nature I have too much brain spurious brain activity.
> It dials in your mental space and all the negative thoughts flood away. You're present in the moment [...] You feel a lot better about life for days or even weeks at a time [...] the focus and calm. Does that make sense?
I think you nailed it here. A lot of our mental issues are made so much worse by twisting them in this abstract world in our minds. Doing something that is so pure and requires you to be 100% in the moment kind of destroys all of that and pulls you back to reality, it can really put things into perspective.
> It's not about "no downside"! That completely misunderstands. It's about a HUGE upside.
Let's compromise and say it's both? You're right that the upper bound experienced may be a lot higher than most may realize, but it's also true that the lower bound may no longer seem that deep of an abyss as it appears to most. Hence the mental equilibrium in-between being at a point that can seem somewhat alien to those who live more slow-burning lives.
> but it's also true that the lower bound may no longer seem that deep of an abyss as it appears to most.
> Hence the mental equilibrium in-between being at a point that can seem somewhat alien to those who live more slow-burning lives.
I suppose that requires a profound amount of empathy from both perspectives. And even with infinite empathy, at the end of the day, it's still two aliens staring at one another across a chasm.
Yes, it's a lot like an addiction. Perhaps literally.
This also gets talked about in climbing quite a bit -- people who find their path out of alcoholism or other drug use and into climbing. I'll emphasize that this is now about climbing in general, not free soloing per se.
Climbing (especially with protection) is healthier than drug addiction, in some sense. But it's displacing one addiction with another. Or introducing addiction as a coping mechanism, in the case where the pain doesn't originate from another pre-existing addiction.
But sometimes cope is healthier than the alternative, and coping can play an important role in "getting you through to the other side". As long as you do actually make it through, of course, both in terms of not dying and in terms of getting to a healthier place where you don't need the coping mechanism.
Maybe the probability of dying per climb is only a few percent. But probably goes up as the climber gets older. And if you are exposed to that high risk repeatedly, it's almost certain to kill you eventually.
Of course everyone dies eventually, but I'm guessing the life expectancy of free soloers is significantly below average.
Once you get beyond measuring the extremes like childhood & maternal mortality I think life expectancy is such a dumb stat, especially in developed countries where we rarely lead subsistence lifestyles. It should be about the contents of your life, and if you love climbing so much that you keep free-soloing to the age that it literally kills you I can't accept that as any sadder than quitting and then dying of old age.
This rings true to me. I improved my surfing most at a point in my life where drowning didn’t really worry me. Not because it was less likely, but because I was at a point where I didn’t care much if I died.
It meant I dropped in on waves well beyond my skill level. I had lots of near misses but learnt heaps from the ones I caught.
I’m thankful I no longer feel that way, I want to stick around for those around me. Now I’m content on smaller waves and take a lot less risks in all aspects of life.
Curious what wave you are riding where drowning was a potential outcome in your mind? I’ve been stuck on the outside too scared to catch a monster in, but drowning never crossed my mind just getting the beat down and getting washed in or sucked back out and Potentially having to paddle some miles to a place that would be easier to get in. Dark with no moon would be unwelcome in that situation.
Many of our local offshore breaks in Western Australia have drowning as a potential outcome as a result of being beaten unconscious or washed under reef ledges.
It's rare but it happens at more or less the same frequency as fatal shark attacks - not often, but memorable.
As the other commenter noted, the waves where I was really afraid had some combination of shallow reefs or sandbars and strong currents. I’ve had a couple friends break their necks/backs at these places, but on milder days where it’s easy to get rescued and there are lots of people around. When I was in my darkest times I wouldn’t hesitate to paddle out by myself at these spots and take off too early/too late and hope for the best.
Honestly I never rode anything too gnarly, but I definitely was too much of a kook for some of them. Maybe I was overestimating the danger and it was beneficial overall?
Unless you are Japanese, that’s probably not the prevailing culture. For the vast majority of people suicide is seen as a mental illness that should be treated, potentially by force, not as an individual choice. Because a person suffering from mental illness by definition does not have full agency over their decisions. Even the idea of allowing suicide for terminally ill people is controversial (although it’s something I personally support).
In the past, suicide was viewed as immoral and criminal. We have moved past that, not because suicide is more socially acceptable, but because of a desire to more easily help people suffering from mental illness.
Regardless of what cultural category may or may not apply, I find that line of thought rather unconstructive. This isn't about being anyone's opinion on suicide like some black and white binary stance whether you're "for" or "against". This is about coming to terms with your own mortality.
It's about the grey area in-between the extremes of committing suicide (the "black"), and forever running away from risk so that you can die of cancer while undergoing chemotherapy and getting your diapers changed in an elderly home (the "white"(?)).
And if even discussing the topic in those terms touches on some kind of taboo, then yes; perhaps you're right to emphasize the cultural component involved.
> You will eventually, as in the article, hit a loose hold and fall.
It's not that simple, it's not a pure dice roll because not all routes are equal. It depends how hard the route is, what type of rock, what quality of rock, what type of holds, what style of route, whether the route allows you to climb with redundancy or not, the weather conditions, the time of year... and finally you, the subjective component, how well you fit all of those variables.
Granted I don't free solo 7a like this guy did, but I've soloed physically difficult but super solid, safe feeling routes, super easy but fragile, dangerous routes, and super easy, solid but crazy exposed mind fuck routes. I've been rained on, had a bird jump out of a pocket, had base jumpers surprise me, come across friends on route (unavoidably distracting), come across broken holds etc. All curve balls but I had plenty of room to accommodate because of my choices to climb with margins and contingency. Every route requires a different approach, not all routes are a good idea to solo for me, and not all routes are a good idea to solo period.
The point I'm making is that It's possible to regularly partake in this style of climbing with a high probability living to a ripe old age. I believe the majority of people free soloing are trad climbers like me who free solo well under their grade, because it can be considered a subset of trad, and it's good for the mental fitness of harder trad routes and benefits from all of the nuance of the careful and considerate mode which is part of trad climbing. Only people who are pushing the limit, and their own limit when free soloing make the headlines. This guy appeared to be pushing himself to his limit, but on the flip side maybe this was worth the trade for him, non-climbers wont get this but it can be an incredibly rewarding part of your life, there's a risk to every style not just free soloing and we all accept that risk every time we get on a route. You accept a risk every time you get in a car, but you still get in a car, they are just on different levels of risk reward, what you are willing to accept for what type of reward is entirely subjective so please don't judge others if they are happy doing what they are doing and understand the risk.
Yeah, this 100%. Also a very natural extension of high balling.
Have you done any stupid soloing? Did it happen when you were having a particularly hard time with your mental health? Because I think that's really common and we should talk about "soloing as a sort of suicidal release that hopefully doesn't end in death" issue...
> Have you done any stupid soloing? Did it happen when you were having a particularly hard time with your mental health?
I have but it's a drop in the bucket (thankfully). I've done a few routes at a time in my life (over a decade ago) where I wasn't ready for them, and they weren't the most appropriate for soloing.
Other areas of my life were not great at the time. I was not suicidal, but it was a very low point for sure. At the time doing those routes gave me absolute control where I had none elsewhere and lifted me from a dark place into a place of pure focus and presence, and although they were not really conscious decisions (they should have been), I think this is the reason I did them. I don't want to encourage this, but it actually helped me, it gave me confidence and relief. In the interim years, I've sometimes checked myself, and pulled myself back when I think I'm about to solo something for the wrong reasons. I don't want to die if I can help it, but I can totally empathise with Austin, I've seen the entrance to the path he went down, I know why he went down it, I don't blame him.
While I wasn't suicidal, I think there is a spectrum of "despair" on which it exists, and anyone in despair might reach for free soloing as a release and way to gain control. And from personal experience I'm saying it doesn't not work, but it's neither a long term or safe solution when you are in that state of mind.
> ...non-climbers wont get this but it can be an incredibly rewarding part of your life, there's a risk to every style not just free soloing and we all accept that risk every time we get on a route.
I'm not a climber, but I get it. However, I have met people who are incapable of thinking about risk at all. As in, if you manged to convince them they were risking their lives driving, they would not be able to drive ever again. For them, ignoring everyday risks is an essential part of navigating life.
> For them, ignoring everyday risks is an essential part of navigating life.
Oh this is totally a thing, and it's kind of interesting... there are two kinds of people when it comes to fear, the first does not acknowledge many of the activities they do regularly as risky and so don't experience fear at all (key difference), and the second set of people do experience varying degrees of fear.
You can pass from the first into the second or start in the second, you've taken the red pill so to speak. At this point remaining petrified is not useful, it increases risk, realising this you then can then learn how to exist in a state of fear and maintain mental clarity. Next, depending on the activity, you can also learn to modulate it through experience and perspective. e.g when you "should" and shouldn't be scared, varies greatly with the route the conditions, your physical condition, technical skill, and experience and being aware and mindful of your own ability... this is one reason people solo, to "tune" their fear, because it should feel scary, but plenty of protected routes shouldn't.
The funny thing is someone in the first category can appear much like an experienced person in the second category, but one is oblivious, and one is very attuned to their fear and thus more likely to survive, it's only people in the middle that are scared out of their mind.
But to be clear I'm not saying this applies in this climber's case, he was mostly likely very attuned to the risks, but gaining higher and higher tolerance and pushing those to the edge for other reasons.
There's ignoring everyday risks, and there's knowing but wilfully disregarding avoidable risk. In your example, driving is definitely risky, but deciding not to wear a seat belt driving is just being silly. Same in this case with the lack of ropes - it's being silly for the inner narcissist.
There’s no bright line. You’re just saying “my understanding of risk is correct, and yours is not”.
As an example, driving is a very avoidable risk. Owning or spending significant time around pool, too, especially with small children. Nevertheless many would say these are “everyday risks”.
What about having airbags? or driving a bigger car than everyone else? or not driving faster than 15, 30, 55, 70? Or not driving at night? Or in the rain or snow?
I always wear a setbelt and when I climbed was roped in, but to claim these generally acceptable risk mitigation techniques aren't subjective is just claiming your beliefs are everyone's beliefs. That's not true.
A seatbelt wearing is very similar to sitting in a the seat of a car. Using ropes is very different from no ropes. Rope failure is probably more common than seatbelt failure so the safety margin difference may not be as great.
I think a word other than narcissist could describe the inner voice. I feel this word choice is pejorative and probably not even accurate description for what is going on.
There are varying degrees of truth to what you say, but the real point is about how risk management and mental health interact.
Reasons that free soloing isn't necessarily suicidal-tendency levels of poor risk management:
1. Do Not Fall zones aren't unique to free soloing. This is also true for ALL ice climbing, but also for a lot of trad and aid climbing. And even in some cases for sport climbing and bouldering. In fact, free soloing is -- for many practitioners -- a natural extension of the run-outs found on sparsely protected lines. I've taken more risks with my life on the sharp end than out alone. I think that's probably true for most climbers. And the closest I've come to death was a stupid trundling mistake on a to-be-developed sport climb.
2. Life is dangerous. Free soloing a juggy ledge-strwen route below 5.5 definitely feels WAY, WAY less dangerous than the drive home. For example. You are more likely to die on the drive home. More to the point -- you are more likely to die on rappel or from rock fall.
3. Free soloing routes that I know up to 5.6 is no more dangerous -- for me -- than hiking on an exposed trail. And in some cases feels way safer than climbing with a rope and gear (see #1; also, climbs at that grade rarely have clean falls). I suspect that for me free soloing up to 5.9 is probably less dangerous than mountain biking or most skiing.
That said, the sort of soloing Austin was doing is definitely of the riskier "fuck that" variety. Oh, and dangerous soloing is definitely correlated with mental health events. The trope of guys doing a ton of free soloing after bad breakups exists for a reason.
Anyways. This is a hard topic to talk about -- especially online -- because "the first rule of free soloing club is...". So you don't have the usual "first hand experience" vs "hypothetically thinking about this" split. IMO it's time to be a bit more open about it, particularly given the mental health thing. I spent a lot of time free soloing. Some of it was dangerous, but some of it was probably no less irresponsible than driving late at night or skiing a bit to aggressively on a groomer. The dangerous stuff happened when I was in a bad place. Let's talk about that more. That's why I appreciated this piece.
> because "the first rule of free soloing club is..."
…telling everyone that you’re a free soloist?
Any busy weekend you can spot some conspicuous soloists on Cathedral in Tuolomne, Corner Crack in Squamish, or GNS at Index.
Maybe the few “hard” soloists are incognito, but the vast majority are regular 5.11-ish climbers that want to show off their confidence on a slabby 5.7 jug haul in front of a bunch of new climbers.
Sure. There are two types of free soloing; the former gets talked about a lot and the latter is still not something people talk about very often. Or at leas the motivation behind it. And talking about the safer type even functions as a way of deflecting from conversations about the latter type ("oh it's really quite safe").
I think it's clear from my post that I mean the non-"5.7 jug fest/flatirons/etc." type people don't talk about. Sorry if I'm not being clear.
In another comment I called it "soloing as a sort of suicidal release that hopefully doesn't end in death". The difficulty isn't as important or the point; it's the sort of climbing where, for the climber, there's very little or no margin. Which for some could be some very easy thing. It's relative. I mean the mental health aspect, and how it correlates with risk selection, not the climbing per se.
I generally agree with you, but I do want to point out that the same could be said for deep sea diving, nascar, jumping out of a plane, flying in a plane at all, going to space, running drugs across a border, and telling your mother-in-law what you really think.
Some humans seem to have a different kind of risk tolerance than you and I do. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I know it is semantics, but the activities you listed are all very different than free soloing. I'm not trying to pull a "no true Scotsman" here, they are genuinely much different.
What you list are activities that have risk. But in all of these activities there are considerations to implement safety to preserve the participant as much as possible. Most of these activities the participants have multiple layers of safety in case something happens in order to minimize the risk. Sky diving, Nascar, Plane Flying, Space exploration, deep sea diving, all prepare for the worst and implement safeguards to minimize it. The risk is continually minimized.
Of the activities you list, trad-climbing/sport-climbing would be the free-solo equivalent. This the relatively safe method of rock climbing that most people participate in. There is still risk and people still die. But you can make mistakes and the safeguards generally protect you from death.
Free soloing is a level above that. In free soloing, the risk of imminent death is a feature, not a bug. It is embraced as the core of the activity. The only comparable activity equivalent I can think of to Free Soloing is wing suit base jumping, although even that is often done with backup safety systems, so it still puts it a tiny step ahead.
In other words, you could think of all those activities as something people choose to do DESPITE the risks, but free soloing is done BECAUSE of the risks. That makes it very different from other adventure activities.
It's also worth noting that the last two examples (drug running and coming clean to your mother-in-law) are just a matter of necessity and survival. While there's technically choice in both activities, it is only done as a last resort despite the risks, which put those into a 3rd category. They are usually involuntary activities.
I don't completely agree. Climbing up a ladder is some kind of free soloing, and you could kill yourself if something really bad happens.
Even walking down stairs is dangerous if you don't master it. That's why we don't let babies close to stairs: they could kill themselves.
But an adult is so confident at using stairs that they don't consider it a risk anymore. Not that accidents never happen, but that is a risk that we are all willing to take because we "master" stair-climbing.
I see it similarly for free solo: one can master it to the point where climbing a route is fairly safe. It would be extremely dangerous for most humans, but for those, it is not. It is still risky, of course, but then some people die skiing slowly on-piste, and we don't say that it was "suicide".
Obviously, some people will take more or less risk when free soloing. But some people take a lot of risks while driving, and we don't say that "driving a car is equivalent to suicide" for most drivers.
I'm pretty sure this depends on the person doing the activity. Every safety feature just allows us to push the boundary further. I've personally done some mountain gliding and there's serious risk there of death if you keep pushing the boundaries of speed, altitude, terrain, weather... Etc. The element of risk focuses the mind and gives you confidence over other less dangerous (more mundane) aspects of life later. In order words, it gives you perspective.
I think it's a mistake to state that free soloing is done because of the risks. The risks may seem central to the process and they are integral to the planning process. Some people like to climb and don't see the risk you apparently see.
The other sports that have no safety features and may look risky would be cliff diving and free diving.
It depends what you count as free solo. In the alps you definitely can book tours without a rope, that involve low grade climbing, that most not mountain people would consider as free solo. And it is the same principle there. One wrong step and you fall to death. And people do. But experienced guides can minimize the risk, by going routes, the client can manage.
Knowing the Swiss attitude a guide would refuse to help someone get over their head. This is also called passing down techniques through oral tradition.
Not really a great comparison, because none of the danger in those other cases could be trivially negated with a sturdy rope.
Lead climbing is plenty dangerous, but the danger is mitigated as a feature of the practice itself - you get ‘save points’ to literally fall back in case you fail. Free soloing chooses not to take advantage of this safety measure.
It’s be like saying “race car driving is inherently dangerous” while refusing to wear a seat belt and helmet. The no, safety gear exists and has been extensively developed over decades of practice - you are simply refusing to avail yourself of it.
It takes extreme skill to maneuver yourself right and hold yourself on the walls he was climbing, even if every hold is sturdy (which they typically are).
It also takes skill to look at rock and have an understanding of how likely it is to be safe to put your weight on. And it takes skill to repeatedly do climbs with a rope to get to the point where you're comfortable doing them unprptected.
Finally, it takes skill to hold yourself on the wall with 1-3 of your other limbs in the event that one of the holds gives away or your hand slips (the latter of which does happen plenty often).
If it weren't skill-based, you'd see random daredevil freaks freesoloing all the time. It just wouldn't be interesting. It'd be like, "Man climbs tall unsteady ladders regularly!" No, what these guys are doing is both insane but also insanely impressive.
Yeah, I'm with you there, there's a big luck aspect it seems.
I think those things soloists they do in order to lower the probability of freak events (choosing climbs smartly, not soloing when they're no in the right headspace, practicing, being good at recovering from mistakes, choosing good holds, etc) makes it very skill-based, but they can never lower that all the way to 0%.
> You will eventually … die and it wasn't due to anything you could have prevented
Everybody else replying to you is talking about how it’s the same in any extreme sport. The truth is it’s the same for you and me, too. Don’t you want to live doing the things that you want, knowing that no matter what you’re going to die in the end anyway?
It’s the same as any other extreme sport - skill reduces risk but cannot fully eliminate it. Eventually a skydiver’s parachute will fail in a way they couldn’t have prevented, etc.
Yeah, based on the other comments here I think I have quite a different view than most. To me, trad climbing vs free soloing seems like riding a bike with or without a helmet - it’s the same sport, just with different levels of safety equipment. But it seems like that is a qualitative difference to most people, which is interesting.
I did mean bicycles, yeah. Really I just think I have a very different way of understanding and conceptualising things. Like to me, sky-diving is “jumping out of a plane”, that’s the activity, and whether you have zero, one, or two parachutes is just a question of safety equipment.
It's fatalistic by nature; then media every once in a while can publish these types of navel gazes. In return, the climber gets attention in life and in death.
Not necessarily. With experience you can tell what weight rocks will hold. And if you climb safe, you don't risk a jump towards a hold that might break (those guys did risk it).
But accidents and misstakes happen. But they totally can happen when you use a rope as well! A rope can even give you a false sense of security (if you don't know what you are doing).
When you climb free solo - you know everything is on you. One big misstake and it is over.
It is a very intense experience, I used to do it in easy territory and I loved it. But now with kids, there is just too much risk. Because yes, it is way more dangerous. But it is only a certain path to death, if you push your luck.
I've been following climbing since the early 90s. Amongst the pros John Bachar is the only guy I can name who died while free soloing in that time.
Dan Osman, Alaine Robert, Alex Honnold, Steph Davis, Catherine Destiville, Better Harrington, Hazel Findlay, Will Stanhope, Brad Gobright, Michael Reardon, Peter Croft, Dave McLeod and many others have all accumulated impressive free solo resumes, but did not die while free soloing. (Some of them died, but not from a free soloing fall)
There’s some literal survival bias here. Those climbers became famous because they didn’t die.
Ryan Triplett was a very well known climber in the PNW that died free soloing 15 years ago. Perhaps he would have more name recognition if still alive today.
There’s likely a number of semi-pros that didn’t live long enough to make the short list.
>I've been following climbing since the early 90s. Amongst the pros John Bachar is the only guy I can name who died while free soloing in that time.
There was Derek Hersey, who I guess isn't pro, but certainly was prolific. Among other very notable ascents is his triple route linkup on the Diamond of Longs Peak.
All those people are a subset of people in general who were very good at free soloing. Almost everyone is not part of that group. That's a reasonable argument that it's possible to free solo hard routes multiple times if you are very good at doing so, but it's not a good argument that you should start free soloing. That said I've done some stupid things while hiking that I guess are sort of like free soloing, but on only somewhat inclined surfaces (30-40 degrees? I can't really remember if it was that high) that were only dangerous because of ice or slippery leaves.
The best argument against free soloing is free soloing. Mortals don't usually get very far before it puts the fear of God in them. The one's who do are wired different, and are outliers even within the climbing community. Myself, I'm a bit stupider. I soloed several radio towers as a teen, and have done my share of questionable scrambling, but I didn't get very far at all with free soloing proper before I started to experience PTSD-like symptoms, and stopped.
>> With experience you can tell what weight rocks will hold.
> As a climber, this is total hubris.
LOL. IMO GP is correct on the object level ("you can free solo with zero risk of being killed by a chossy hand hold") and you are correct on detail level ("if you haven't ripped a piece of choss off the wall by surprise maybe get more mileage outside of perfectly manicured de-facto-gym-crags").
Anyways, the point is that the choss risk is usually totally irrelevant. Most soloists don't solo on-sight. By the time you're soloing a route you usually know these sorts of details. TBH being killed by choss is way more likely belayed or at least on a rope because of the route-familiarity bias in soloing. My closest choss-related call was on TRS trundling shit.
You don't recognize the different kinds of rock? Those that are sturdy and those that are brittle? Those that will likely hold and those that will maybe hold?
But in case I was not clear, there is surely no 100% certainty. Just like you cannot rule out a rock falling on your head. But you can minimize the risk with experience. There is a difference between climbing in sandstone vs. granite. And the type of sandstone, how much iron it contains(color). How wet it is, etc. Do you debate that?
Footholds that look like absolutely bomber granite can exfoliate under a fraction of your bodyweight because geological time is now. One of the sturdiest cliffs in Canada, the Stawamus chief, has seen several historical rockfall events in the past couple years. The vast majority of the rock climbers climb is at least a little bit chossy in a way, limestone and sandstone always have small breaks, granite is more solid but when it breaks it's often enormous chunks. You must not have climbed a lot if you've never witnessed freak rockfall, there's a reason why most cliffs are littered by a talus field at the bottom.
And that's not to mention loose rock above you which you can't even see and that could rain down on your head. It takes a bird standing on a ledge knocking down a softball sized people for you to eat it in the noggin and fall, or wind, or just being at the wrong place at the wrong time (I've coreshot a rope when natural rockfall rained on me while climbing in a funnelling feature, shit was scary).
"You must not have climbed a lot if you've never witnessed freak rockfall"
I did witness quite some things fall, also sometimes with me being under them. But the point of this thread was the theory, that freeclimbing is a certain path to death.
To which I disagree.
Unless of course we also say, that climbing with a rope is a certain path to death, because of all the things you cited and that will eventually happen to you, if you do it long enough. I mean, there was recently a whole mountain top collapsing in switzerland. There is nothing you can do, if that happens spontaneous and you are under it, rope or not.
And then there is of course the chance you will die in a road accident on the way to the mountain.
So I don't understand why you are trying to proof that free solo comes with risks. I am quite aware of it, otherwise I would have been dead a long time ago. And I stated it clearly above.
Yes holds can come off. But if you have your weight on other points, you won't fall.
> Unless of course we also say, that climbing with a rope is a certain path to death, because of all the things you cited and that will eventually happen to you, if you do it long enough.
Climbing with a rope is a certain path to falling.
Free soloing professionally is a certain path to falling to death, unless you stop free soloing first.
I'm not a climber. But reading this thread makes me think maybe the ability to make this distinction could be a kind of fizz/buzz for selecting climbing partners.
"Climbing with a rope is a certain path to falling."
Yes. And if you miscalculated, you will still fall on a rock and break your back.
Or a sharp rock will cut the rope and you will fall to death.
Or the nut will come off and you will fall to death.
Or the material was bad and you will fall to death.
There are many ways climbing can go wrong (especially if you are inexperienced or careless, most accidents happen on easy routes). And I am quite sure, that the way I was doing freeclimbing, was way more safe, than what many casual hobby climbers are doing with a rope. That is quite often horrific. And this is what I meant with false security.
Really fantastic piece that explores the life of a free solo climber without straying too far into hero worship. I've long been troubled by other pieces on this corner of climbing as they always felt a little too approving, a little too encouraging of such a dangerous practice, but this one manages to avoid that trap.
It reminded me of the story of a famous (within that community) Appalachian Trail through-hiker who went by the name "Baltimore Jack" (from the Springstein lyric, "had a wife and kids in Baltimore, Jack. I went out for a ride and I never went back.) that I read some time ago. He had abandoned his family to essentially live on the trail and eventually died there, seemingly of exposure. I googled it and it's from the same publication, so I'm sensing a theme.
I met Baltimore Jack in the Smokies in 2010 and crossed paths with him a few more times between there and Hanover. I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
With the limits that come of only seeing him a few times on the trail, I'd like to suggest that he clearly had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol and probably had some other demons.
With that said, he was also a kind soul and the conscience of the hiker community. He was unafraid to say something to people acting in a way that was detrimental to the community at large. He encouraged other hikers and shared freely of what he had be that knowledge or food.
Because of all of that, there was a certain amount of hero worship around him. He was a much loved character. But I get the sense that Baltimore Jack was a bit of a character, and assuming that role let him avoid some of the other things in his life that he might've lived longer had he addressed them.
In your opinion is desire to do extreme sports a mental illness?
(Of course there is toxoplasmosis, toxiplasma gondii (sp?), which causes risk taking and is a literal brain parasite ... perhaps we're due a repost of that one.)
Not in itself but the end result can be, parasites aside. I had a friend in high school that ran/exercised (wayyy) too much, studied too much, and needed surgery to fix a receding gumline when she was 16 or 17 from overbrushing. That would be just one example.
Yes, 100%. Our bodies are our own and we should always be completely free to dispose, modify, destroy, build, protect, or damage them as we see fit without external interference.
It is entirely valid to choose to build one's own body and health, and thus it is entirely valid to choose to damage one's own body and health. Even in the case of addiction or disease - who can possibly be a higher authority on "should" than the person in question?
> Is it a trap if the only danger is to the climber themselves?
This tends to be untrue. Often when there are accidents pr tragedies, several people go to great lengths and risk their own lives in attempting to help.
I am largely pro the right to free solo, but the ability to claim "it just affects me" feels like a lie. Plus now I am reminded of a Dan le Sac song. Anyway.
I positioned my right foot on the chip, took a breath, and reached around for a good side pull. As I grabbed it, the cobbles smooth beneath my fingers, I imagined, just for a second, what would happen if I released the tension in my core. That’s all it would take for my foot to wiggle a millimeter to the side and skate off that chip. I’d plummet more than a hundred feet to the ground. I cleared my head, pulled through the move, and stood up onto the face, now in more secure territory. I listened to my heartbeat. I calmed my breath. I closed my eyes. A few minutes later, I scampered over the top of the cliff.
I know the author and Austin have their demons. I just want to point out as someone who has solo that route, and know quite a few people who have done that as well, none of us ever thought about that. I dislike the way social media portrait free soloing, because like twitter, it's impossible to describe Hemingway in 280 characters.
Best wish for those who are suffering, and I hope they can find ways to survive and even heal before it's too late.
I didn't solo at my limit. The routes were easy, below my standard, and well known by me. The possibilities of so low that I just didn't think I would fall. I was good enough and confident enough that I want to experience freedom. During the solos, I didn't feel anything, it was mechanical, pure physical movements. I didn't have heightened sense or anything like that. In fact, it was less "arousal" than if I have rope and trying my absolute hardest on other routes. I also didn't have selfies or anything that would even prove I was there. But after the climbs, there was a sense of fulfillment, a quiet confidence and pride that simply make me happy. I didn't tell many people about my soloing because I did it for myself.
Many of my partners/mentors have done bigger solos. All of the solos were done in quiet manner, and generally on less traffic routes or days. They weren't searching for meaning of life or next high. They simply want to climb quietly and competently and come home without any drama.
I stopped soloing because I find it hard to take the next step, which is to solo harder and harder grades. I didn't like the way it made me feel. It became chasing glory rather than self expression.
I don't solo regularly but I have soloed a few things(5.6 is the hardest I've soloed if you're familiar with climbing grades).
my answer to this is basically once you've gotten to a certain level in climbing, some of the lower levels feel effortless and it doesn't actually feel risky. As an aside, roping up for some of that easier stuff wouldn't be worth it because it would just take too long.
Take walking up stairs, that feels incredibly easy and risk free to your average person but if you slip and fall down a flight of stairs you will most likely get pretty badly injured or potentially die... but no one puts on a rope to go up stairs because the risk level is so low even if the consequence level is very high.
that's how I feel about soloing and I suspect its how many others feel about it too.
fwiw, climbing hard stuff on a rope is way more fun for me than easy stuff without one but to each their own
Obviously "it's a free country" and whatnot in terms of what you do and what you like to admire, but I can't seem to muster any respect or admiration for this sort of thing whatsoever. I see nothing here but potentially, literally, wasting your life.
Hate to break it to you, but in someone’s perspective everyone’s wasting their lives. Like I think you’re probably wasting your life. Do you care? I hope not!
How many people in the world really truly care if you admire or respect them? Maybe a dozen or so?
Why is it a stupid reason? If you love climbing rocks without ropes then dying in a rocking chair having spent your life not climbing rocks without ropes probably seems like a waste of your life.
> I see nothing here but potentially, literally, wasting your life.
Funnily enough, I wondered the other day whether all the time I spent sitting in a chair having petty arguments with a computer (aka.programming) to have been a waste of my life as well.
Why not? Seems like a useless categorical imperative without context. Yes, you shouldn't usually "judge people" but I'm happy to offend or whatever if that's the worst thing I'm doing, and a slight possible upside is getting someone to rethink actions that could lead to their death.
Niche sports are fine, and the losses are probably super low. These are usually highly skilled athletes - and they’d probably be the first to consul an amateur.
A friends son-in-law is a Harley no-helmets guy. He died a couple days back on his bike, leaving two kids under 10. Kickstarter and FB is all freedom seeking bikers talking about what a tragedy it is. God’s Will and all that.
Perfectly normal behavior and view held by millions and millions.
It _is_ a disparaging view, and it’s _not_ clear he intended to survive all his climbs or he would have been using ropes.
Nothing of valor was achieved, and he performed no virtuous acts. It was a string of stupid, pointless acts which led to his death, and now we have people like you hero-worshipping him.
For my own part, I hope that nobody I love ever attempts something like this.
If it was an experimental pilot pushing the boundaries of flight or something, sure, there are inherent risks but you’re doing everything you can to mitigate the risk.
Climbing without a rope is just turning a past time into a needlessly dangerous pass time, with no benefit or glory.
"I hope nobody I love ever attempts something like this."
THAT's it, exactly. If ANYONE at all values you as a person, doing dumb crap like this is hurtful to them.
I believe in personal autonomy, so yes, legally you should be able to do it. But it 99% is a shitty thing to do, to yourself and other people. It's dumb and should be discouraged.
He had a different risk tolerance and definition of safety. I would not agree that he made wise choice, but there is a difference between wanton recklessness and literally suicidal.
I agree with your assessment, but I also see no value in "respecting his choices?" Which is to say, if people like him think we're assholes for calling them something-like-if-not-exactly-suicidal, thats fine, I'll be an asshole. I still sleep better calling it out than being silent here.
My issue is less with dardevil climbers being offended and more to do with the dilution of the word “suicidal” which is a term that most sensible people would aged should remain free if hyperbole, disparagement, and overprescription.
The article mentions he was battling with depression and actually described suicidal thoughts and ideations. This is very clearly contrasted to his thrill seeking tendencies and the fact he seemed to have goals even if it was to stave off depression.
Language is powerful and it’s meaning changes over time, but it is doing a disservice to mental health to simply label actions you find reckless as suicidal to signal your personal disapproval.
The guy actually dies due to his reckless/suicidal actions, has suicidal thoughts/ ideation, and you’re just perfectly content with assuming they’re completely unrelated?
Has it ever crossed your mind that his mental state manifested itself in his actions that took a sport from moderately dangerous to “flipping the coin on your life”?
The most mike blowing part of this is that the part you’re most concerned with is policing the language used in the conversation, not actual outcomes in peoples’ lives.
I’m sorry if I’m not young, wild and free like you and him are, but I pity any friends or family who might be in a situation where they need a voice of reason to call them back from making a stupid, life-ending decision and all they have is you telling them “it’s okay as long as it’s within your risk tolerance!”
What are you talking about? They're obviously associated, you just SHOWED that. You've provided the best proof possible that "suicidal" is appropriate.
Do you wear a helmet everything you’re in situation where you might hurt your head? If you lived in a world were people wore a helmet every time they drove a motor vehicle, but you were okay without, you may agree that there are benefits, but if you consider an event where it would help you unlikely and you liked the feeling of not wearing a helmet, would you classify that as suicidal? People die of blunt force trauma during car crashes but not protecting yourself does not mean you are having suicidal thoughts and ideation. What he did was objectively more dangerous, but his risk tolerance was different. The part I take issue with is the accusation of being literally suicidal which is a serious matter that many people struggle with and we should not extend that definition to include daredevils.
Sure we should. Why, precisely, should we NOT? I keep hearing this idea of "it's bad to use the word suicidal except in these very specific cases," and no one's REALLY come up with a genuinely compelling reason not to.
Fitting what a book says is not compelling; potentially saving lives is. Not calling someone "suicidal" when they are or merely might be strikes me as infinity worse than calling them suicidal when they're not.
Suicide itself is, in the philosophy of many, permissible.
This isn't congruent with suicide, however. But even if it were, that's permissible, as our lives are our own to use as we see fit. Anything less means you're not free to choose your own destiny.
It's unnecessary to you and me, but obviously not to these people. Our own opinions of necessary do not apply to them, only to our own lives.
Some people may believe in the value of these activities even if they view their lives as valuable. You seem to still be viewing these activities through your own lens; ultimately it isn't our place to tell other people what level of value they should place on their lives or what harmless-to-others activities they should or should not engage in thereby. It's simply not our value judgement to make for them.
Sure it is. It's absolutely my value judgment. Which is to say, if they think I'm an asshole for saying what I'm saying, that's fine, I can live with that -- much more than I could live with pretending that I think it's okay.
I suppose it would get dicier if I were thinking about law or policy to put into place here, but I have no problem simply using my words here.
I feel uncomfortable watching free soloists. Like watching Roman gladiators, risking their life for our amusement. I found it interesting that Clif bar stopped sponsoring athletes that do it. Maybe that's the right decision and direction. They aren't just climbing for themselves usually. The eyes and likes are spurring them on to greater risk. On the other hand, I admire Alex Honnold and other climbers, it's a weird cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s weird. We are savage but try better ourselves. This is what movies are for, to me. Death and violence can be had there, in a safe format.
Really engaging article. The "climbing as therapy" notion is a bit overhyped, in this article and elsewhere. IMO anything that promotes focus or mindfulness can chip away at a depressed state, and once in a while, pop you into happiness. It can be painting, mountain biking, playing piano, anything.
I'm sure it's different for everyone, but I think climbing has a bit more reason to make a claim here. If you lose your focus, or fool yourself into thinking you're focused on the right thing when you're actually not, then you'll find out. You'll slip or you won't find a way up. With something like painting, it's easy to fool yourself.
It's a bit like the difference between writing and programming. I like doing both, and can get deep into both, but a compiler is going to tell me I'm being a dumbass a lot quicker and more definitively than any eventual reader could.
Also, climbing with protection can be very therapeutic. As can bouldering. It doesn't have to be deadly to really, really focus your attention. Your brain doesn't want to fall even if it's just a few feet.
It's also a remarkably mental exercise. I love when they set new routes and you can watch the high level climbers gathered around, mentally rehearsing how to solve a problem.
> The "climbing as therapy" notion is a bit overhyped
What I liked about the piece is it actually hits on exactly this point, and specifically that if you can't find peace off rope you won't find it chasing a high on rope.
They never said climbing (specifically free soloing) was the only way to do this, it just so happened that this guy gravitated towards that. It’s a pretty well established fact that physical activity or mentally stimulating activity of certain types will help alleviate symptoms of depression.
I don't climb, or at least not hard enough for my opinion on climbing to be relevant, but I came to realise for myself that my mountain biking was a form of counterphobia.¹
There is a famous trail builder who built super risky trails in the North Shore of Vancouver. Those trails involved riding along six inch wide logs which were all slimy and slippery way above the forest floor.²
My bonafides: I've ridden everything on Fromme and most trails on Seymour too, back in the day before they cut down the most dangerous lines.
Basically, I just wanted to say that from those riding experiences, that I get it. I know that feeling of being one with the trail, of fully accepting and merging with the fear. It brought me peace during the ride (it altered my perception till all I could see was the front tire and the line I was riding, everything else became bokeh) and the comedown after riding trails like that was also really nice.
Driving home across the Lions Gate bridge with my bike in the back of my friends shitty pickup (the bike was likely worth more than the car) are probably some of the happiest memories I'll ever make.
I always thought one particular line was interesting:
Magnus: "I'm worried I might pass out, fall and die"
Alex: "If passed out in your car on the highway here, you'd still be dead".
Just an interesting perspective on danger. If we were to run the numbers, am I safer as Alex free climbing a wall as I am Regular Bob driving on a highway to work?
No, almost certainly not. For example, if you are in stop-and-go traffic on a highway, and as long as the visibility is good and the road has good traction, you could drive for literally hundreds of years straight before reaching 1 mean expected death from the driving. If you fall asleep in those conditions and are driving a modern car, the car is likely to be damaged but you probably won't die. I don't have numbers for free soloing, but if you pass out, you will die with a high confidence.
“Experienced climber”? Magnus in his prime was one of the best climbers in the world, could have probably out-climbed Hanold at his best. Not just an experienced climber.
That being said, it’s a really interesting look into the mental side of doing scary things bc it’s really a very easy climb for magnus
I don't mean to downplay Magnus's achievements but wasn't he really more of a gym/comp climber? It's kind of a different sport. I don't think Magnus was ever as good on rock as Alex
edit: I'm wrong, Midtbo apparently climbed a 5.15b. I think Alex's hardest climb was 5.13d, but he also primarily pushes the limits on trad, so it's still not a straight comparison. For context, the hardest trad climb ever done is 5.14d which is 3 grades away from the hardest sport climb ever confirmed (5.15c)
Some people have a death wish. I try not to get in their way or emulate their risky habits. There's no rational reason to climb without safety gear except to proclaim how much they DGAF about dying.
Celebrating a death wish is canonizing dumb because the feels and drama makes it into a story. They're dead because of choices they made and that's nothing to celebrate.
"Howell’s belayer let go of the brake strand of the rope, a careless mistake."
As a climber, I really dislike how this phrasing minimises the belayer's error. It's a sure sign of improper belaying technique. Bad belaying is life-threatening and quite common, and it makes me angry (having witnessed several such accidents). A belayer who actually knows how to belay never, ever, takes off their brake hand unless the rope is tied off.
It's a bit like saying "the driver ran the red light going 20 miles per hour over the speed limit and hit a pedestrian, a careless mistake"
Another thing that bothers me is how people brush off improper belaying technique when the pro climbers do it. There are numerous videos of Adam Ondra, Dave Graham, etc just belaying with their hand off the brake strand, or their finger fully pushing on the cam of a GriGri while not paying out slack, and when people criticize them, other people just perform an appeal to authority and say "he climbs more than you, he knows what he's doing".
I agree that poor belaying technique in general shouldn't be accepted, if for no other reason than that it sets a bad example.
That being said, the pro climbers can probably catch the non-brake strand of rope with their bare hands (they're strong enough to grip the rope with their full weight on it), so if they have a hand on the rope at all, they're probably fine whether or not the belay device is catching the fall.
There's a famous situation (https://archive.is/tHQh0) where Alex Honnold and Emily Harrington (another pro climber) were starting a simulclimb (a type of climbing where two people climb at the same time). Emily Harrington was on the wall and getting to the point where Alex would start climbing. The rope was going through his Grigri (auto-locking belay device). But Emily fell far above her last piece of protection, and the rope started to pool on the ground next to Alex's feet.
Normally a climber would fall at least double the distance between them and their last piece of protection, so if you are 2 meters above your last piece, you may fall anywhere from 4-7 meters before stopping (rope stretch and the amount of rope and slack in the system are additional factors)
When you fall, the rope also falls, until you get to your protection and continue falling, after which it pulls the rope back up. The fact that Alex was able to react to the rope pooling suggests she was falling a pretty incredible distance, I suspect at least 5-6 meters, before reaching her piece.
Had Alex caught her with the brake strand, she may have fallen up to 3 times as far, possibly hitting the ground and sustaining much worse injuries or death. Instead, he plucked the rope out of the air so she fell a much shorter distance, and caught the fall with his grip strength and body weight alone.
That's a good point. So actually when I said "A belayer who actually knows how to belay never, ever, takes off their brake hand" above I was wrong. Pros often do it, and they're setting a bad example which I think is pretty inexcusable. It's not like there's ever a good reason; it's just lazy.
Yeah there's a good reason like if a pack unclipped itself at an alpine belay and belayer wants to secure it. I hope my belayer lets go for 10 sec to fix that rather than drop our tent and all of our food and water.
Hm. That's a bit of a stretch, but sorta plausible scenario I guess, if somebody screwed up securing the pack. If you were belaying me, I would expect you to at least warn me if you're gonna do that -- risking my life to save some food or equipment isn't ok. And preferably tie off the belay -- that should only take a few seconds.
Yeah, unfortunately belaying is one of those things where it's incredibly easy to lose focus, and when you do the consequences can be catastrophic.
Unfortunately, climbing in general can be like this. Maybe you get reckless and space out your pro too far. Or you forget to tie a knot in the end of your belay line. The more competent you get, the easier it is to get too comfortable and to make a truly catastrophic mistake.
But I think most of the "dropped by belayer" incidents are caused by belayers who were taught improper technique, or never taught at all. I've seen lots of youtube "how to belay" videos that involve switching hands and other dangerous practices which involve taking the brake hand off. Just slip slap slide, people.
I can respect Honnold and Leclerc. While their pursuits are dangerous, they took great care in their craft and respected the mountains and the art. This guy just seems like a reckless fool, pursuing likes on Instagram out of some stubborn unwilligness to deal with his depression head on.
Btw I have had a TBI, thankfully I made a full recovery, but I am not at all sympathetic to the TBI-justifies-deathwish this article hints at. The fact that the author writes these biographies, and seeks to add in his own lived experience, but has basically no bio of his own on his website is also a bit off-putting.
> I have had a TBI, thankfully I made a full recovery, but I am not at all sympathetic to the TBI-justifies-deathwish this article hints at.
I have two problems with this sentence.
You had TBI, that doesn’t mean you know everything about it though. Brains are complicated, and they can get injured in many different ways. I’m glad that you have recovered fully, maybe he was not so lucky?
The other is that the article doesn’t say that his TBI “justifies” a deathwish. Rather than it explains his behaviour. It also clearly puts into context that this is disputed by the subject himself, but the explanation is supported by the mother.
> This guy just seems like a reckless fool
That is I think a valid observation. But one can always look one layer deeper. What made him a reckless fool? This is what I believe the article is about.
> pursuing likes on Instagram out of some stubborn unwilligness to deal with his depression head on.
What does “dealing with depression head on” mean to you? As far as I know there is no one-size-fit-all solution for depression. There are many who gets better following standard care, but also many who do not. It sounds he tried therapy and possibly many other things. Maybe free soloing was his way of dealing with his depression head on?
Would you rather like him to be miserable but alive than feeling better but dead sooner than you think he should have died?
> While their pursuits are dangerous, they took great care in their craft and respected the mountains and the art. This guy just seems like a reckless fool, pursuing likes on Instagram out of some stubborn unwilligness to deal with his depression head on
Bluntly, if you are willing to justify Honnold's behaviour but not Howell's, I think you're just rationalizing. At least Howell didn't have a kid.
Honnold has kid now, in the height of his fame curve when he did most dangerous stuff he had barely a girlfriend (with typical fanatic attitude of 'me any my passions first', and if there is sometimes anything left then others).
He is still doing some soloing, and may very well die from some stupid accident outside of his control like random loose rock just falling on his head, but chances compared to before are much smaller.
I'm not really sure the chances are any smaller. Here's one example, he onsight soloed a 13 pitch 5.11a last year a few months after his kid was born: https://www.instagram.com/p/CfSIT0QuzXq/
He does this kind of thing all the time (and usually doesn't post about it), and it's arguably more dangerous than what he's most famous for, which is soloing really big routes only after he's climbed them on a rope hundreds of times. It's like a retired Olympic marathon runner going for an easy jog every few days, but if they ever trip they'll die.
I mean, 5.11a is really not that hard. Of course, there are levels to the game. 13 pitches changes the calculus a bit, but he regularly does 50+ pitch linkups. So, that's basically just a warmup for him (and others).
Not without risk, but then again, neither is driving to the crag.
To me the article pretty clearly indicates that mental illness, and multiple traumatic injuries, play major role in Austin's addiction to free climbing. In the middle of the article is a point where his father tells him he's going to die if he keeps this up and he says he's "willing to take the consequences of his actions."
He might be reckless but I don't think he can be called a fool.
(Also: The author's credentials are in the article - depressed, took SSRIs, started getting high from free climbing. That's enough of a relation to the subject of the story for me. You're obviously closer to it.)
This long form writing style where the author has to inject his own story as a secondary/support narrative gets really tedious. You could edit all of it out and the story would be sustained.
Not even a Black Swan, in Taleb's original. It's a known unknown. Every time I write a checklist I know it's going to be somewhat wrong, even if I have other people go over it. I also know there are things I should have checklists for but don't, but I don't know what they are. Another known unknown. A real black swan is when thousands of dedicated people have thought about the issue and miss it. Thinking your checklists that no one or only a few other people looked at are perfect is just a major lack of intellectual humility.
