Hacker News Reader

Comment by skohan | Hacker News Reader

> Alex is wearing modern climbing boots

As a climber this hurt me a bit to read. They're not boots, they're shoes John!

Also I'm glad that the movie is successful, and that the sport of climbing is getting mainstream attention, but personally I'm more impressed by the accomplishment of Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson in free-climbing the dawn wall with protection. In my mind that is a better representation of the highest level of achievement within the sport. Climbing without protection has more to do with being a daredevil than a climber, and while I understand why it's so impressive, I am conflicted about this particular achievement being celebrated and potentially emulated.

Pedantry aside, the article makes some interesting points.

View on HN

Mislabelling climbing gear doesn't bug me, but this:

> Likewise, nobody in 1958 had any idea that you could hang by your thumbs and fingers to exploit little pieces of rock. This knowledge, demonstrated in the movie, emerged from the community of rock climbers and boulderers over time.

John Gill was sending V9 Boulder problems in 1958, in tennis shoes! He was off in his own little world and climbing way beyond the standards of the greater climbing community at the time.

Gill is regarded as the father of modern bouldering. He began as a gymnast and adapted modern training techniques from gymnastics to bouldering. He never had much interest in roped climbing or long routes, he was all about doing the hardest possible moves on stone.

> Climbing without protection has more to do with being a daredevil than a climber.

I think it's important to recognise that there are many different ways to get up a piece of rock, these are a choice in "style", and each style has different challenges, different qualities etc. No one style is better than another, they are a personal choice, and this is part of what makes the sport so great... if you want to invent a new style, you can, it can be completely made up and personalized and obscure, perhaps it is even a one time thing, climb route x in slippers on christmas. People only argue about the validity of the most common styles, but they often forget they are only a style.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm all for people finding what they enjoy and defining the sport on their own terms.

What gets me about free solo climbing is the sheer level of risk involved. Even for the best in the world, there are too many variables which simply can't be controlled in a climb like that, which is evidenced by the high rate of death for free-solo climbers.

I fully support anyone's right to decide to take on that risk if they are fully informed of it. Personally it would not sit well with my morals to risk my life in such a way over a completely optional, self-serving activity given the emotional and material cost my death would bring to the people who care about me.

Moreover, I have qualms about such pure risk being an avenue for fame and fortune.

> Personally it would not sit well with my morals to risk my life in such a way over a completely optional, self-serving activity given the emotional and material cost my death would bring to the people who care about me.

"Personal" is indeed the key word, and people usually bring up the subject of family and loved ones... These are my thoughts on that: Our lives are finite, crossing the road incurs a certain level of risk of death, so it's much safer to stay at home and live as a prisoner your entire life. Any family demanding a loved one stay at home their entire life would be considered selfish.

Here's the thing: for some people, climbing, or even free soling is not an event to post on facebook, not a means to an end, not about fame... climbing is the other side of the road, it IS the end not the means, it is their destiny, to climb, not to "have climbed", it's what makes them happy and is why they can accept the risk.

What amount of risk is an aceptible trade for what style is entirely personal, not selfish.

I totally agree with this. Risk isn't a dirty word that should be avoided at all costs, it's just one aspect among many that has to be factored in to a decision. Soloing never clicked for me but I know a few people who love it and get a tremendous amount out of it; I would never presume to tell them they are wrong because I personally would do something different.

Years ago a friend of mine took a massive fall free soloing. He survived but was badly injured. I couldn't believe how many lectures he got from people who barely knew him, telling him how irresponsible he was. This is a guy who is a climbing fanatic, who had already had more amazing life experiences in his early 20s than most people do in their entire life.

It took a few years, but my friend eventually healed up enough to get back to serious climbing and has been back at it ever since. Would his life be better if he spent it all grinding out a safe but boring office job like most of his critics? I don't think so, but apparently many people disagree.

> ... the high rate of death for free-solo climbers.

Honnold made an interesting point in his latest (?) appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast: none of the top free solo climbers has died on a hard free solo climb (and many didn't die free solo climbing, or even climbing, at all).

And of course lots of people die climbing with ropes and protection too, even highly skilled and experience climbers.

Most people would probably consider any significant climb to be 'too risky'. As I disagree, I don't think I can reasonably fault anyone else for choosing some other higher level of risk as being 'too risky'.

I would have to see some statistics before I would find that argument convincing that free solo climbing is just one of many risky activities.

Also I don’t find it very compelling if climbers tend to die on easier free solo climbs rather than harder ones. I don’t really care what the grade was on a climb if it kills me.

In that same podcast Alex said that he had more or less stopped soloing easy routes, reserving solos for rare big accomplishment climbs, which makes a lot of sense to me. As a long time climber, I can't think of a single climber who died on an extremely difficult solo, but can easily name a half dozen or more elite climbers who died on easy terrain.

I think this makes sense for an advanced free soloist like Alex - but does not invalidate soling easy climbs for everyone, part of the skill of free soloing is in training the mind, keeping control and conditioning yourself with the feeling of fear. You have to work up to that, and choosing lower grades helps you build those strengths - but continuing to climb them once they feel too easy (mentally), will leave you with relaxed focus, which is of course deadly.

this makes perfect sense to me...

there really aren't many that have died, maybe a couple dozen, so not much stat to draw info from. BUT they aren't always on the hardest routes, so the law of averages would dictate that they die on "average" difficulty routes.

I'm necromancing posts here but can't help it... Something else to keep in mind is what grade is viable to solo necessitates that on average they will be _very_ easy. No one solos at their hardest grade - to be clear, what Alex has soloed _is_ very hard and an incredible achievement, but in terms climbing with safety not super hard, and far under Alex's ability in absolute terms.

> I don’t really care what the grade was on a climb if it kills me.

You shouldn't climb at all then. People die just scrambling too. Even hiking can be dangerous.

Do you wear a helmet when you drive a car? That might actually be sensible. It's probably just too 'weird' for almost anyone to seriously consider.

I would also highly recommend The Dawn Wall: https://www.dawnwall-film.com/. I watched it and Free Solo at around the same time, and The Dawn Wall is a much better movie in my mind

* As a climber this hurt me a bit to read. They're not boots, they're shoes John!*

"rock boots" is a perfectly fine name for climbing shoes. I think "climbing boots" is just fine

Not a native English speaker, and it might depend on the region/scene but I wouldn't agree with you.

This is a rock boot (usually called mountain boot) https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f7/fb/96/f7fb9693adc35876240a... and this is a rock shoe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PRxN-KNqLs#t=127s

Maybe it's regional but I have never heard of climbing shoes referred to as "rock boots", much less "climbing boots".

Often used in England, which you could argue was where the hobby of climbing something other than a mountain gained traction.

They often call them boots in the UK.

Today I learned...

Hmm, only ever heard them called climbing shoes, except army, who seem to call them pixy shoes :P I think they are forced to climb in boots hence the derogatory.

Having actually met Honnald several times, I’m pretty hard pressed to call him a daredevil.

Plus Caldwell climbed with a missing finger!

That said, I'm not sure I'd rank one over the other. Both feats are incredibly impressive, albeit for different reasons.

Many people would call them "rock boots" in British English.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com