It's a shame that the only exposure that rock climbing gets in the mainstream media is this sort of thing. "Crazy climbers risking their lives!" There's actually a little bit more to the sport than that.
It's the reason that Americans tend to ask me "you don't do any of that free climbing, do you?" whenever I tell them I'm a climber. Yes, that's all I do. But you're probably thinking of "free soloing", which is much less common, and would take a lot of explaining to make you understand why it's really not as dangerous as it looks. But anyway, that's not what climbers do for the most part.
I guess for the New York Times, regular hard rock climbing and bouldering is just not that exciting. Yes, this guy is hanging by two fingertips, 30 meters off the ground and doing things with his body that most folk wouldn't consider possible. But he's not about to die so this isn't really all that interesting. Certainly not interesting enough to push a photo of a celebrity getting out of a car off of page C6.
In Europe, most regular people I meet tend to know some basic things about climbing and bouldering. In America, nobody seems to have ever heard of the sport. It's all either Mt. Everest or Crazy Free Solo Guy.
I just got into climbing a month ago, I've been to the gym about 7 times now, and am absolutely in love with it.
I think it's one of the perfect sports/activities for programmers, but like you said, nobody talks or knows much about it!
Some guy at work kept asking me to go, he had a free guest pass. One day I said why not, and went. I didn't know that there were routes on the wall, and game-like rules.
When you see pictures of rock walls, you assume the climbers are just grabbing onto any hold and going up the wall -- which is really not that interesting. What people don't know is you only have certain holds you are allowed to grab, and have to figure out how to get to the top with strategy and skill.
I hate biking, running. Pilates/yoga is okay. Bodybuilding was okay. But climbing, is awesome. You are basically playing a game, getting stronger, getting in shape, and getting more skilled at something. I almost don't want to tell people about it though, because I want to keep the gym membership somewhat small ;)
Well, on real rock often climbers do just grab or stand on whatever they can to advance. But it's still interesting because there is usually not much available. The complex route tagging in gyms is so they can simulate the relative lack of "holds" on real rock, while packing a lot of routes into a small space.
Keep with it but be careful--climbing is addictive. You might find yourself quitting your job and living out of a van in Colorado to climb every day...
> I think it's one of the perfect sports/activities for programmers
I think it appeals to programmers for a lot of reasons...there's an element of problem solving, it's beneficial to be skinny and almost everyone only competes against themselves.
But there's another hidden benefit to programmers that you'll only discover as you get into it. When I started climbing, I was beginning to feel RSI-type pain in my wrists. My computer ergonomics is pretty terrible and I was starting to investigate ways to improve that in the hope that my pain would subside. 2 months into climbing, all that research into how to improve my posture stopped. My pain had completely subsided and I can now spend my 8+hrs/day using the worst possible posture with no ill effects.
For me, I've discovered that RSI injuries are not about doing one thing too much. Instead, they're about not doing other things as much. Climbing exercises and strengthens my wrists in so many different ways (slopers, mantles, crimpers, cracks, etc) that no amount or poor habits can compromise the benefit I get from ~6hrs/week of climbing.
This benefit isn't unique to programmers, but since we spend a large percentage of our time at the keyboard, it's definitely applicable to us.
Climbing is exciting if you're fit - and you confirm you've been to the gym. I'm still muscular at 32 but I'm 5kg more than at 26 and it's much less fun. Every pound is one pound too much in climbing, and with experience you'll notice that climbing is frustrating for people with any bit of fat on their body.
When I said "gym" I meant rock climbing gym, but they do have some weight lifting and cardio stuff there.
The guy that invited me is quite a bit heavier than me. I'm about 15lbs heavier than I want to be, and he could probably lose 50-60lbs. He climbs way better than me.
Weight is an issue, and he and actually has a personal trainer who is focusing on his weight and diet, but just being a little overweight is no reason you can't climb. I've seen some a few "fat" people there doing wall climbing.
Climbing exerts a lot of energy and you will burn calories doing it, while building muscle. You can pick the easy routes and go up and down them over and over.
I used to think this, but I was amazed and impressed by the amount of attention the El Capitan Dawn Wall climb received in the media. That was very much about pushing the technical limits with only the normal climbing risks.
I was particularly impressed because as far as your average non climber is concerned there are things you can walk up and things that are impossible. It's hard to grasp what "very difficult" means if you have no frame of reference. You can grasp what "very dangerous" means though.
The U.S. has a pretty big pile of rock gyms. Even a couple of small towns in the East Bay had them (although they've since closed). An increasing number of regular type gyms have a small bouldering wall. Yosemite sees a lot of climber traffic during most of the year, as does Joshua Tree and Mount Rainier and "the Gunks" and more. I'd be surprised if you could meet anyone in Colorado or Utah that didn't at least have a passing knowledge of climbing of some kind.
It's a pretty mainstream sport now.
But Honnold and others that push the boundaries of the sport are a special case that get a lot of attention even from other climbers. The NYTimes isn't that interested in plain ol' bouldering probably because anybody that's in reasonable physical condition who spends a few months training can pull a V3 somewhere. Hell, with modern equipment, 5.10a is approachable by novices in a lot of places.
Niche sports will never be understandable to the public. Even mainstream sports aren't. The only thing the public knows is how to recognize patterns. The best you can hope for is getting a trickle of a few more people interested in the sport so they make the equipment a little less expensive over time.
Talk about amazing things people can do... do you know how many amazing athletes are in the street begging for change? Whether they be breakdancers or doing magical acrobatics. Practically homeless, amazing skills. People think the novelty of niche sports is interesting for about 45 seconds but don't give a shit about the details. I'm not even sure how anyone has ever been made to care about a sport. Seems impossible from where I stand. Maybe because beer and sitting on your ass daydreaming is the majority of being a spectator and people are happy to do that on the weekend without argument.
Indeed. I just finished two books[1] by authors who were at one time the best in the world at their sports, and they are virtually unheard of. There's amazing athletic talent in the world that is hardly ever recognized.
[1] Eat and Run by Scott Jurek and Swimming to Antarctica by Lynne Cox. Two very amazing endurance athletes.
>I guess for the New York Times, regular hard rock climbing and bouldering is just not that exciting.
There are some standards for newsworthy topics. Regular rock climbing isn't newsworthy. You can't fault the New York Times for not covering every regular guy as he climbs a regular rock.
FWIW this is the wrong forum to talk about Americans not climbing. It feels like half the software engineers I work with are climbers, at least as far as gym climbing is considered climbing. This is in San Francisco, and I used to climb a lot but don't anymore, just so you're aware of my selection biases. :)
"Honnold does this without apparent fear, as if falling were not possible."
I've seen a few interviews with and about him. That seems to be a universal sentiment.
I'm curious about his amygdalae.
It's clear that he does feel fear, but he has an extraordinary amount of control over its expression.
"Sometimes, I have brief moments of anxiety" he says about being on a sheer cliff face hundreds of feet up with no more than finger tips anchoring him.
The samurai Miyamoto Musashi was quoted as saying, "the way of the samurai is resolute acceptance of death." When it comes to dangerous activities, you have to accept that failure is a possibility, and you have to get into a headspace of being at terms with that. No, you don't want to die, but you also can't let the issue enter your mind and distract you from the task at hand.
Almost all the times I've failed something, it's been because I was terrified of failure and it ruined my ability to perform.
I've climbed for about 12 years, and never could understand this perspective until recently. There are plenty of climbs that I now have 100% confidence that I will not fall on, in which case the feat of falling just doesn't exist in the way you might expect. The Sierras are a great place to develop this confidence on technically easy but unbelievably exposed terrain.
When I got to the part about his fall as a teenager, I started to wonder whether something was damaged in his brain that made him who he is (mentally). A brain MRI might tell us a lot more, but I imagine he wouldn't agree to that.
This whole thread is full of false equivalences. There's a difference between playing Russian Roulette with a 6 chambered gun, and one with 20,000 chambers.
Yes, you can die falling out of bed. You can drown in a bucket. A meteor can hit your house. You can get into a car accident. None of these are comparable in risk to free soloing.
Skydiving as a sport has 3 million jumps per year and ~21 deaths. It's extremely safe in comparison. (only about 1/5 of mountaineering injuries end in death)
There are many ways to get extreme thrills in life or achieve a zen state and not all of them have comparable risks of dying. And many of them have a non-zero probability of injury instead of death due to safety factors from equipment.
And then there are risks that bring societal benefit, for example, those who serve in dangerous places around the world bringing humanitarian assistance, or documenting human rights abuses. These are measured risks, and they are not solely selfish. Astronauts and explorers take risks on their missions, but they do so with the best equipment and preparation they can, and often for reasons that go beyond sport.
Deliberating putting yourself into a situation by forging the usual safety equipment is being reckless.
Often, the usual response to this kind of reasoning is that you could die at anytime so why not "live life to its fullest" but that's kind of a hedonistic copout. Subjectively you could define this to mean anything, like overdosing on heroin and dying in bliss. I think if you're going to be reasonable and empathic to your loved ones, your family, your community, you should have more concerns than just getting off on your own extreme hobbies while raising the cortisol levels of everyone who loves you. Taking the best available safety precautions is the responsible thing to do.
I don't really understand what you're trying to convey. You cite many scenarios where you could die going about your everyday life, but then criticize free soloing as being significantly more risky and "reckless".
The major difference between getting into a car accident and taking a fall while free soloing is that while free soloing, you are in control of nearly all of the risk factors. Free soloing routes that are beyond your capabilities, or climbing in bad weather -- that is reckless. Free soloing routes which you have practiced many times with protection -- to me, that's less reckless than cycling to work during rush hour.
Well, it's a combination of the likelihood of uncontrollable risks, and the severity of the consequences. Sure, you can die from someone else's mistake while cycling (or driving) on a road, but in the vast majority of cases you'll get away with some bruises and scratches (hard numbers: in 2012 in Germany, there were 74,776 road accidents involving a cyclist, but only 406 of those were fatal), whereas if you're free soloing and a hold breaks off mid-move high in a route, it's game over 100% of the time.
Certainly not in 100% of the cases. You might have just gotten over an edge, it might be an easy move where even a hold breaking can result in a recovery, or you might fall 30 feet and still be alive. As an analogy try taking an indoor V1 and making every hold spin, etc. There are plenty of folks who can climb that unreliable route.
Also, an analogy for a hold breaking mid-move is a heavy truck in rain slamming into you and the concrete wall behind you as you're cycling.
I'm pretty sure that I would die during the first play from scrimmage if I suited up and tried to stand in for a middle linebacker in the NFL. The burden in this example, as in yours, is on the idiot who is so inspired, not the one with exceptional athletic skills.
I think that amazing activities should be freely filmed. The more inspiration in this world the better. If people less good at climbing than this guy are inspired but then bite off more than they can chew, we don't need to darken the light that inspired them.
I think 'the problem' you've mentioned is too fundamental and general to guard against. Live and let live. People who do potentially lethal activities for which they are ill-equipped can be advised, but who knows where they get their inspiration from? If not a video of someone free-soloing maybe they'll be inspired by the latest film.
What if the person never had an outlet for self-esteem and found it skydiving? I know many people in that boat--myself included. You may think it's a hedonistic copout, but a bunch of people living in vans built a skydiving discipline that formed the basis of this business: https://www.iflyworld.com/ which now allows millions of people to experience skydiving without the risk.
Some people have different things that get them out of bed. I like hipster coffee shops, but that wasn't what motivated me to try to excel at my job.
who are you to say for others what they should do or shouldn't with their life? here we are talking about elite athlete, olympic winner-level, with his greatest asset being total control of his mind (on a level that can be probably envied by quite a few gold-medal owners).
On personal level, he is also super-cool guy, humble, a bit shy.
I have the impression that most so-called haters didn't even try rock (or any other) climbing. The ways you need to overcome your own fear (and it's strongest of them all - fear of immediate death).
I never did solo and I don't see a reason for me, but even with ropes, climbing is very special activity, beyond usual sports based solely on your strength & endurance levels. I would even say it makes me a slightly better person, more experienced with myself - how I react in panic mode, how to overcome my imminent fears and just push forward when needed.
Isn't this enough at least respect other peoples activities? He doesn't want any money from you, or anything else. In fact, leave him be and he will be the happiest. Let us, sport & climbing fans pay indirectly him a bit so he can do what others can only dream of / admire from distance. Don't you see pure love in him for what he does? Something that I really don't see in hugely overpaid football/hockey/basketball/whatever mainstream sportsmen these days.
If this sort of thing interests you, I suggest you watch the following films (assuming you can find them):
* Hard Grit (http://www.slackjaw.co.uk/climbingfilms/hardgrit.html)
* Committed, Volume II (http://www.hotaches.com/climbing-films/committed-vol-2/)
Committed is especially interesting, as it follows the Whittaker siblings as teenagers, doing cutting edge, dangerous grit climbs in the Peak with the parents holding the ropes. Good stuff.
i think people have a lot to learn from alex and shouldn't just dismiss him as "inhuman". i think it's important as a human to commune with death. i grew up with someone like alex. we hung out every day, and following him forced me to constantly push my limits of fear. i grew immensely as a person thanks to him.
the most profound experiences of my life have been in moments where i could've easily died. i wouldn't want to live if i couldn't do things that could kill me.
Alex does not feel fear like most of us do. I suspect he's biologically different and able to use his mental energy perfecting the technical aspect of climbing.
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!
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
There is ACTUAL risk and then there is the PERCEIVED risk:
Perceived (P) ≠ Actual (A)
Both rock climbing and startups (like everything) have different P and A risk factors and there will always be a gap between P and A.
I try to live a life where not only is P > A but P is as high as possible and I work every day to make A as low as possible. I guess you can call this Risk Arbitrage.
"There is no adrenaline rush. If I get a rush, it means that something has gone horribly wrong. Because the whole thing should be pretty slow and controlled. I mean, it’s mellow."
Alex Honnold has been a big influence in how I'm building my business. He discusses risk many times because he gets asked that question too many times. The answers are relevant outside contexts in which life is hanging is a balance.
- Take a measured approach to risk. Building a startup is not a blind leap, more about sound analysis and knowing the limits of what you can do.
- Do what you love doing. Continuously train, excel.
- A very rational approach to life. Many people who attempt such adventure have somewhat irrational beliefs, believe in some force, spirituality etc. He doesn't need them. Explanations are simpler in terms of what we know, and what we don't know yet.
- While this may not appeal to everyone, his living out of a van thing is as inspiring as anything else he does. I guess one would see success and failure differently if they experience life in that format.
Couldn't agree more - the few times I've soloed and felt a rush it was definitely because I faced something unexpected and undesirable. That rush is a terrible one to feel.
A modern romance story: “She was my first fan,” Honnold told me. “She’d seen the film, and she posted, like, one line on my Facebook, and I was like, Oh, my God! There’s a cute chick talking to me! I posted back a smiley face, and then she did a winky face, and it was game on.”
It's the reason that Americans tend to ask me "you don't do any of that free climbing, do you?" whenever I tell them I'm a climber. Yes, that's all I do. But you're probably thinking of "free soloing", which is much less common, and would take a lot of explaining to make you understand why it's really not as dangerous as it looks. But anyway, that's not what climbers do for the most part.
I guess for the New York Times, regular hard rock climbing and bouldering is just not that exciting. Yes, this guy is hanging by two fingertips, 30 meters off the ground and doing things with his body that most folk wouldn't consider possible. But he's not about to die so this isn't really all that interesting. Certainly not interesting enough to push a photo of a celebrity getting out of a car off of page C6.
In Europe, most regular people I meet tend to know some basic things about climbing and bouldering. In America, nobody seems to have ever heard of the sport. It's all either Mt. Everest or Crazy Free Solo Guy.