Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Poll Option

Votes

Graph

I require a belay to leave flat ground

Dont solo 'routes' but do unroped access scrambles

42%

I solo established routes graded 5 or less

I solo established routes graded 10 or less

I solo to within 10 grades of my roped limit

15%

I solo to within 7 grades of my roped limit

19%

I solo to within 4 grades of my roped limit

I solo at or near my roped limit

Author

Soloing


Paulie

13-Aug-2005
2:12:10 AM

On 12/08/2005 Paulie wrote:

>Soloing is silly, if you do it often enough you will probably die from it - it's simply not worth it.

IMO (for what it's worth)

I think we just have to weigh it up for ourselves, how important is climbing a route solo when it can be (in most cases) safely led or toproped? IMMHO, those of us with other pursuits and a good life outside climbing I would think will opt for not soloing.

In the end, I would rather give up climbing than die or become severely disabled as a result of a snapped hold...

IMMHO, soloing is a very selfish thing to do (unless you have no friends, family or loved ones)

Paul


Paulie

13-Aug-2005
2:16:47 AM

On 13/08/2005 gordoste wrote:
>Your friend was lucky but he would have had no-one to blame but himself if he had to >spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair.

No he wouldn't but would you be able to live with the knowledge that you could probably have stopped him from soloing that route?

I would rather have decked him than lose a good mate.

A lot of it is in the route also, if it's a short solo above a good landing (deep water solo for example) , then it's probably going to be alright, in this instance the route had suss holds and the landing is one of those no-recovery landings (the route is "The Staircase" at the Rock).

Paul


Paulie

13-Aug-2005
2:21:01 AM

On 13/08/2005 Stuck in UK wrote:
>perhaps you should consider not trying to pass your opinions
>off as some sort of definitive statement based on one incident you have
>experienced.

FYI, I've seen a person hit the ground from 20 mtrs up and I assure you it's not a pretty sight when you're holding them in your arms as their lungs start to fail...I would not wish that on anybody...soloing has very harsh "rewards" should you fail...

Paul

13-Aug-2005
11:03:07 AM

On 12/08/2005 Dr G wrote:
>WM: Interesting poll - any particular reason for it?

The current reason was the discussion about soloists' need for the chains on Ali's. My first reaction was "they're just an insane but vocal minority (no offence intended!) so why should that have any relevance". But then I realised I did know quite a few people who solo and should maybe find out for what sort of percentage of people that is a relevant need for the Ali's chains.

Also, a while ago I got sick of playing lightning rod in this thread (apparently I hit a few nerves) but still was interested to find out a bit more.

Gordoste: I don't mountaineer for many of the same reasons I don't solo.


sabu

13-Aug-2005
11:11:08 AM

i have to agree with you there Paulie, anything can go wrong on the rock im sure many have seen that for themselves. the pain and suffering that relatives could be put through because you decided to take the risk, just isn't worth it.

Dave C

14-Aug-2005
9:05:14 AM

On 13/08/2005 Paulie wrote:

>FYI, I've seen a person hit the ground from 20 mtrs up and I assure you
>it's not a pretty sight when you're holding them in your arms as their
>lungs start to fail...I would not wish that on anybody...soloing has very
>harsh "rewards" should you fail...

You're not the only person to witness fatal falls you know. It has not altered my opinion that soloing is a matter for yourself and nobody else to decide on. I have also hit the ground twice while soloing myself (as the bits of metal in my feet and ankle will testify.)
I do not need anyone to tell me what the possible consequences are, I'm well aware but I still say it is a matter of opinion and personal choice.
Please do not try and fob me off with top-roping as an alternative, it's the Clayton's of climbing (anyone else old enough to remember the old Clayton's ads? I hope so otherwise that just went over everyone's head!)

Ronny

15-Aug-2005
2:37:42 PM

Its all just a question of risk x return. With roped climbing the risk of something going wrong (ie falling off) is probably greater (assuming you're climbing harder on roped routes) but the consequences are less (the rope should hold you and it'll all be ok - but there is still a risk).
With soloing (assuming you're soloing lower grades) the risk of faling off is substantially reduced, but the consequences are far greater.

Its just a personal choice on any route which one (roped or unroped) brings the safety level within your acceptable standards.
For me on some low grade routes on solid rock i'm confident that the risk of falling is low enough that the overall risk is low enough.

There are some routes I wouldn't lead with ropes on because of fall potential, gear issues etc.

Paulie,
If you're so concerned about hitting the ground, then you can't really justify climbing at all, because there still a chance that you'll deck no matter what you're doing.

James


kerroxapithecus

15-Aug-2005
10:09:39 PM

On 14/08/2005 Stuck in UK wrote:

>
>Please do not try and fob me off with top-roping as an alternative, it's
>the Clayton's of climbing (anyone else old enough to remember the old Clayton's
>ads? I hope so otherwise that just went over everyone's head!)

A Clayton's climb you may say...but there may also be such a thing as a Clayton's life.


Paulie

16-Aug-2005
2:49:59 AM

On 15/08/2005 Ronny wrote:
>If you're so concerned about hitting the ground, then you can't really
>justify climbing at all, because there still a chance that you'll deck
>no matter what you're doing.

Very true...now that I'm older I realise the risks a lot more and things that I would have done 'in my youth' I wouldn't even think about doing now - including some of those hard old bolted things with way rusty carrots scattered around the country!

Living in the UK has reinforced that climbing is a very serious game that we play, and the number of people over here that climb hard on unprotectable or barely protectable routes is indeed quite amazing, also amazing are the number of accidents! You think Araps has a high number of severe incidents, come over here and have a look, someone's getting pulled off the major crags once a week - unbelievable!

Seriously though, I do agree with Stuck in the UK in that it's a personal thing, but IMO, when you're winging it towards the ground at the speed of sound, you'd better have been doing it for yourself (memories of Mr Croft coming back here) and not for the hot chick (or bloke) climbing next to you...

Paulie

P.S., Mtn routes are certainly dangerous, but if approached properly, they are no more so (IMO) than soloing some rock route...

Dave C

16-Aug-2005
7:46:47 AM

On 16/08/2005 Paulie wrote:

>
>Living in the UK has reinforced that climbing is a very serious game that
>we play, and the number of people over here that climb hard on unprotectable
>or barely protectable routes is indeed quite amazing, also amazing are
>the number of accidents! You think Araps has a high number of severe incidents,
>come over here and have a look, someone's getting pulled off the major
>crags once a week - unbelievable!

Amazingly though, it's not the hard routes that kill & injure people. The people doing those routes are generally very good at assessing the risk. Most of the serious accidents you hear about here (and Paulie's right, there are loads of them - I know of 7 in the last month) are on relatively easy routes and poor rock quality seems to be the most common cause (Hanging Rock would be a solid compact crag in many parts of Britain!)

when you're winging it towards the ground at the speed
>of sound, you'd better have been doing it for yourself (memories of Mr
>Croft coming back here) and not for the hot chick (or bloke) climbing next
>to you...

Agreed!
>


rhinckle

17-Aug-2005
8:44:18 AM

in the days when "the leader never falls" 17 was a big deal.
that was an issue of equipment.
the whole game has gotten so much safer with nylon rope, sticky rubbr, nuts, hexes, cams...
so those who maintain that trad is the only real climbing, don't forget that real climbing used to be, for all intents and purposes, soloing, (in hiking boots or volleys).


Phil Box

17-Aug-2005
9:45:41 AM

On 17/08/2005 rhinckle wrote:
>in the days when "the leader never falls" 17 was a big deal.
>that was an issue of equipment.
>the whole game has gotten so much safer with nylon rope, sticky rubbr,
>nuts, hexes, cams...
>so those who maintain that trad is the only real climbing, don't forget
>that real climbing used to be, for all intents and purposes, soloing, (in
>hiking boots or volleys).

Read this piece of historical climbing literature from Ted Cais.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

24-Aug-2005
4:46:49 PM

>Read this piece of historical climbing literature from Ted Cais.
Excellent reading.
If / when parts 2 & 3 are forthcoming the continuing x-over links would be great Phil.

WM
What conclusions do you draw from the stats, as this seems to be the most successful poll yet conducted on Chockstone with 74 responses?
(... it is obvious that statistically unroped access scrambles are potentially the most dangerous sort of 'solo' regularly engaged in).

Bob Saki

24-Aug-2005
5:00:40 PM

from a new climbers perspective:
I personally dream of soloing up to grade 20 plus multipitch and single pitch routes.
I have only soloed very short grade 10's and below but I must admit the feeling of soloing is a unique blend of fear, ego, logic and freedom for me. There's nothing like trusting yourself and it paying off.

I am very drawn to this way of climbing, i don't even know why but I guess it comes down to the simplicity of it, and the primitive appeal of man climbing rock as they would have done many aeons ago!.(bar the shoes and chalk)

How about a weekend at the Gramps or Araps and the only gear required is a chalkbag and shoes!!?? i mean that is your enitre rack!!!

I guess the whole mortality thing and injury factor comes into it for some but I've always maintained a simple saying "when you die, you die!"


nmonteith

24-Aug-2005
5:32:54 PM

On 24/08/2005 Bob Saki wrote:
>How about a weekend at the Gramps or Araps and the only gear required
>is a chalkbag and shoes!!?? i mean that is your enitre rack!!!

That's called bouldering... ;-)

dalai

25-Aug-2005
8:42:11 AM

On 24/08/2005 nmonteith wrote:
>On 24/08/2005 Bob Saki wrote:
>>How about a weekend at the Gramps or Araps and the only gear required
>>is a chalkbag and shoes!!?? i mean that is your enitre rack!!!
>
>That's called bouldering... ;-)

No, you need your bouldering mat, bouldering chalk bucket, brushes, ladder and bush saw...

Nottobetaken

25-Aug-2005
9:08:13 AM

On 24/08/2005 nmonteith wrote:
That's called bouldering... ;-)

That depends on your definition. I spent a weekend at Araps some years ago with just that (shoes and chalkbag only) - and did 1075m (43 pitches) on the Saturday. Trust me - it wasn't completed on the Round the World boulder!


IdratherbeclimbingM9

25-Aug-2005
9:29:03 AM

>No, you need your bouldering mat, bouldering chalk bucket, brushes, ladder and bush saw...
LOL
& blue tarp?
He He :)

Take!

25-Aug-2005
11:24:01 AM

"come over here and have a look, someone's getting pulled off the major
crags once a week - unbelievable!"

Unfortunately, with our current government's need to catagorise everything from the point of view of how much money 'we as a country' (ahem) can make or lose from it, this type of thing could spell the end of climbing in Aust as we enjoy it. The cost to society from rescues could even be seen as a threat to our way of life by certain law making types....

Hmm, soloing as a terrorist activity - punishable by death...

Seriously though, the sensationalist commercial media (aka government propoganda machine) would have a field day with a multitude of deaths and rescues and climbers would be 'exposed' and ran out of town along with the shonky washing machine repairers.

This wouldn't really worry the soloist who falls to her death because, well, she's dead. But the cumulative effect of an increase in incidents would make life hard for the rest of us. This may add weight to the soloing as a selfish activity argument (not that i'm agreeing with it) as its not only perhaps selfish from from the perspective of loved ones, friends and those that have to witness a final plunge. It could also be seen as selfish from the negative effect it could have on the whole lifestyle of climbing. I'm all for personal expression of life choices but I still want to be able to climb with the same level of (un)regulation at the end of this 4 year term.
We seem to have barely survived the increase in climbing activity from its promotion on lifestyle programs. Otherwise known as the "Getaway" effect... The increase in climbing gyms has helped keep these masses out of the bush.
If people want to become bold and enjoy hormonal highs due to exploration of their own mortality perhaps, cool, they might like to try big wave surfing. An increase in surf deaths won't effect my access to the cliffs.
Sorry for long post, thanks for letting me drivvle out some half thought ideas (again).

dalai

25-Aug-2005
11:34:00 AM

Soloing accounted for only 16% of fatalities listed
http://www.vicclimb.org.au/media/documents/general/Accidents.pdf and leading accounted for 40% of the fatalities in Australia...

For all accidents categorised as Severity 3 and above, leading accounted for 60% of all listed and soloing merely 5%!

To say soloing is more likely to be the source of greater regulation in our sport is flawed.

There are 73 messages in this topic.