Hacker News Reader

Comment by sunilkumarc | Hacker News Reader

This is totally insane. I agree that we have to push our limits of fear. It is very brave of him to do such things and all. But even if there is a slightest mistake, it is guaranteed that he is going to die. I mean, why take such risks ? What do you want to achieve dying. At least, do these things with safety is what my opinion is. Life is much more than showing people you can take such risks!

View on HN

> But even if there is a slightest mistake, it is guaranteed that he is going to die. I mean, why take such risks ?

Interestingly, free soloing actually eliminates quite a lot of potentially deadly mistakes. Protected climbers die usually when they make stupid mistakes in their protection routine, or when their protection fails in unlucky ways. That can't happen to a free solo climber, since he has no protection to rely on in the first place.

A (sane) free solo climber will only try to free solo a route which he has finished multiple times protected and is absolutely certain his stamina and skills are sufficient to complete, and which has no holds of dubious quality.

If you don't misjudge this, the deadly risks that remain are things you cannot really prepare for, like rockfall, cramps, or holds that come loose due to some invisible crack.

I think this is the part of the experience that I never really realized...

There's no such thing as just going out and soloing a brand new spot, is there? THAT's the kind of risk I have always pictured when hearing about free climbing... and that just doesn't happen?

Total perspective change. Thanks!

I overstated a bit. Onsight (climbing term for doing a route the first time and without getting information from others) free solo does happen (and Honnold does it occasionally), but is a rare exception and done on routes that are yet again more grades below the climber's skill level than for "normal" free solo, and sometimes people take along protection to use in an emergency.

The essential principles remain the same: never do a move you're not absolutely certain you can finish, and never climb to a point where your stamina is insufficient to either finish or climb back to a safe resting place. For an onsight route, the two combined mean that you must always be able to climb back because you might encounter a situation where you have no certain moves forward.

It's not about showing people that they can take risks, but doing what they love doing and always pushing their limits to achieve more.

Doing what you love is totally fine. But if you could die doing such things, then why do it at all ?

There's a quote from the film Heat where Al Pacino says"You can get killed walking your doggie!"

Death is everywhere, it seems that he has fully accepted the fact that all people are mortal and like him, you will die too.

Also, I'm pretty sure that for him it isn't about proving things for other people, it's about how climbing makes him feel about himself.

Different people have different worldviews. Some people consider it not a life well lived (or lived at all) when not going all-in on what it is they do.

There are a lot of passions that are very safe most of the time yet present life threatening risk in peak doses during small moments of time. E.g. crossing an ocean on a sailboat, backcountry skiing, etc

You can die driving to work in the morning. One small mistake on a high speed road and that's it. Alex knows how to climb like you know how to drive.

I expect the insurance industry, who knows quite a bit about risk, might have a different opinion on the topic of relative risk than you.

Their assessment of risk is motivated by money, though.

Which is my point - they have to be correct.

> Alex knows how to climb like you know how to drive.

More importantly: he knows what he cannot climb with sufficient certainty to try free solo.

Alex knows how to climb like a top formula 1 driver knows how to drive.

I'm a skydiver, and before every jump, there's always a chance it'll be my last. Skydiving is an extreme sport that can be practiced safely (but is not, by default, safe).

BASE jumping, while even more dangerous with many outcomes resulting in death, is something I'm considering on trying in the future.

I don't really do it because of the risk. Sure, I love the adrenaline rush and I love doing extreme things, but that's not the core reason. I know many people who have lost a half dozen really good friends each throughout their lives. That is absolutely devastating. Every time there's a fatality, it spreads through the community rather quickly.

I do it because the experience is like no other, being able to fly through the sky (I mean, how can this view[0] not be attractive). It's also an extremely social sport. You get to form close relationships with total strangers rather quickly.

I could also die driving everyday, the odds say I'd have a better chance at dying in a car than skydiving. So there's always the logical route based on historical evidence.

[0]: http://imgur.com/shu3AtY

If you can't find reason in it, doesn't mean others cant.

If you really have to question every action that might end in your death then you would never go outside, put anything in your mouth, go to the bathroom etc. Your question really only makes sense when considering activities that have a relatively high risk of death in which case the answer has to come down to two things. Firstly how risky is this activity? And secondly, how much risk am I willing to take? If you want to answer those questions, I recommend watching Honnold's film on risk as others have pointed out.

Because you die anyway. Just measure risk vs benefit to yourself. Alex climb vast majority of his climbs with rope just like everyone else. Sometimes I guess he feels he wants to do it without, because degree of focus and being in the moment it bring is unparalleled.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com