Hacker News Reader

Comment by skohan | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com