As a climber, I wish this were less widely publicized. Free soloing is extremely dangerous, and dozens of climbers - including experienced ones die doing it every year.
I am a big Alex Honnold fan, but no matter how much your skill, free solo climbing will kill you one day. Alex Honnold is not the first free soloist, and won't be the last. He is great climber, and has no fear of heights it appears. Your average person or climber is not going to try to replicate what he is doing due to their desire to preserve their life. We do not see many people jumping gorges in rocket sleds like Evel Kneviel although he was massively famous. Of course some will try to replicate but they are also special people that are daredevils as well.
Speaking as a former sponsored, professional climber who happens to have been one of the first Americans to solo 5.13... sorry but I'm still alive and kicking.
Listen... soloing is obviously very dangerous. Nobody who is out there soloing as a pastime is unaware of this. But comparing soloing to trying to jump gorges on rocket slides isn't doing justice to a complicated and nuanced subject.
Soloing is a personal decision. And it is usually carefully made. People who solo regularly are usually not adrenaline junkies. They're not thrill seekers. They're careful and methodical and prepared. They have probably solo down-climbed more total mileage than you can imagine.
Calling Alex a special person is fair and appropriate. But he's not a daredevil.
What would you estimate his chance of death was in doing this climb? 1%? 5%? Most people would call someone who takes on that kind of deadly risk for nothing more than accomplishment and legacy, ie by choice, a daredevil.
If free soloing is not usually thrilling, or adrenaline inducing, but something you approach with care, methods, and preparation... what's the point of the induced-risk? Why not take on a similar challenge that's more difficult, minus the non-trivial probability of dead, like most other climbers do?
Gamers find themselves introducing more and more arbitrary challenges to make their accomplishments more difficult to achieve. The difference between gamers and free soloers, is that when gamers fail, they don't destroy, to various extents, the lives of all the people that loved and supported them as a side-effect of their failure, all because they thought it was a good idea to introduce deadly activities into their lives.
I think that this is probably the biggest misconception about Alex. Pad your estimates of death with a couple of 0's, that is, 0.01% (even less) chance of death. From this article others have posted https://www.outsideonline.com/2190306/why-alex-honnolds-free...:
> “It would be so easy for you—you know you wont fall on 5.12,”
In essence, he is so good at climbing, this is like going up a really long ladder for the average human. Sure, rungs on the ladder could break, but even I could climb a ladder 3000ft tall with enough endurance training and not fall. At least, most likely not fall.
To answer your question about the thrill, in multiple interviews, he says that free soloing is the "ultimate test". Akin to closed book and no calculators. Can you really claim that you've mastered a subject if you were allowed to use aids? This is the way he views free soloing.
When you view it like this and reduce the chances of dying to be less than driving on the freeway, I think it is less daredevil behaviour and more the ultimate passion for his craft.
The guy has done the route many, many times with a rope. You could sort of work out a probability based on how many times he has had to save himself with the rope. (I'm not sure he ever has)
downvoter: justify yourself. Do you object to making the calculation this way, or what?
So is Formula 1 / NASCAR driving, deep sea diving and even innocuous things such as Sky Diving carries a lot of risk of death and injury which we casually ignore. Alex and other free soloist climb the rock multiple times charting the route, memorizing it, studying the environment and weather and then attempting the challenge. Alex had climbed El Capitan multiple times in the prep for going free solo until the time he can do the climb literally blindfolded. Folks sometime read these stories and assume he just walked to that rock for the first time and started climbing. That's not the case. Risks are there no doubt but it's no different than risking your life Base jumping or White Water rafting.
First, this is like climbing trivia! Who is the mystery user?
Question: do you still free solo? My impression is that there are plenty of ex-free soloists who are still alive (Peter Croft being one of the most notable). I suppose Croft still does some ropeless stuff high in the Sierras, but he seems to stick to a rope when doing more technical climbs. There are, however, fewer older free soloists who still solo at or close to their limits.
You are spot-on about the soloists attitude, however. The NPR article leaves out the fact that Honnold attempted the solo previously, but downclimbed because conditions were right.
> free solo climbing will kill you one day
> [...] [Wikipedia] has a list of free solo
> climbers.
The Wikipedia article you're linking to does list a bunch of people who've died doing it, but also famous free solo climbers in their 60s and even 80s.
It's not a good idea and it's dangerous, but we wouldn't say with confidence that smoking or drunk driving "will kill you one day", which is the part of the GPs comment I'm replying to.
You can also add the legendary Patrick Edlinger, who died after falling down his stairs at the age of 52. Who can forget the epic "Life By the Fingertips": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj1-58EfWpo
They were all established capable climbers before they earned a reputation free soloing. That's not really true in this case. I mean, every year there are inexperienced climbers who die, but comparing them to the masters is like comparing some kid with a spoiler on his Honda civic who loses control and hits a tree to a professional formula 1 driver.
I'll add Derek Hersey to that list. He's not as big of a name as those on this list, but there is a movie called Front Range Freaks which has a great segment about him and soloing. He died at 36.
It's worth noting that both Dan Osman and Dean Potter died in part due to park service policies.
The park service allows all kinds of activities that cater to motorized tourists, but bans specialized activities like base jumping. Yosemite is one of the best places in the world to base jump, not just because of its beauty but because the cliffs are oriented well for base jumping. The ban pushes jumpers to fly at dawn or dusk, and hide their activities, in a way that pushes the safety margins.
This starts to resemble something like abstinence-only education in schools, though, where a hard-line stance of "just don't do the risky thing we've told you not to do and you'll be fine" leads to less successful real-world results than embracing the complex realities of human behavior.
No it doesn't. There are other places and countries where you can BASE jump. They chose to do it where it was banned and selected times where they would evade authorities.
This sort of entitled attitude doesn't help IMO. Breaking local laws just confirms that you can't trust these communities and you give everyone a bad name.
Do you honestly think anyone who BASE jumps gives a fuck what you think? Why even waste your time saying it? They're obviously not here to obey the rules. Like, really obviously.
I'm not really sure I understand the point of this comment.
Of course they don't have to listen to me. But people express their opinions all the time.
Of course they should follow local access rules, local ethics and etiquette.
Most outdoor communities I've seen try and keep good relationships with local authorities. We want to maintain areas as much as they do so we can keep using them.
Other than driving in your car what motorized activities does Yosemite cater to? Much of the park is wilderness and motorized transport isn't permitted.
Well, he was standing around getting his picture taken when a big wave came in and washed him away. Whether he was free soloing or suntanning, it wouldn't have made any difference. Really sad, he was a massive talent and his solo of Romantic Warrior was astonishing.
John Gill was doing long free solos on easy 5th class well into his 60s. Peter Croft is still working as a mountain guide out of Bishop, CA, I have no idea if he still goes out for jaunts sans rope in the high sierras, but he free soloed almost daily for decades.
To all those people attacking this guy, I think it's important to point out that free soloing is absolutely controversial in the climbing community, for exactly this reason. Heck, Clif dropped some climber sponsorships, including Honnold's, for just this reason:
Personally, I do think that free soloists like Honnold to some extent damage the reputation of the sport by making it appear inaccessible and irresponsibly risky, while the reality for sport climbers is that the sport is really fairly safe with proper training and equipment.
I don't see how it is any different then something like back country skiers, or base jumping. There are is a wide spectrum of risk in a lot of "extreme" sports.
Not trying to make this an attack either, I just see a lot of parallels elsewhere in other sports -- and it seems a little hypocritical to me that the climbing community would even be divided over this.
Furthermore, sticking with the BC skiing example, many people (resort skiers) would see it as irresponsibly risky. But we know that BC skiers take all the preparations they can, from monitoring avalanche reports and forecasts, taking training classes, learning how to probe and escape avalanches with partners. Similarly, Alex very much spends a lot of time preparing for his free-solos, in all aspects of planning -- which makes it much more calculated then "irresponsibly" risky to me.
It's not really all that different, which is why it's controversial.
Obviously, people are free to do risky activities, if they and their families and friends are the only ones who will suffer the consequences. Things get a lot messier when money is riding on the line, though - see concerns about Everest sherpas, free solo sponsorships, ski resorts advertising their backcountry...
No, he should not get wide publicity of this amazing accomplishment because HE is an idiot. The fact that he succeeded (survived) just means that he is still an idiot.
Honnold had practiced individual segments multiple times before this attempt. Those practice runs had left rubber marks on the walls, which helped him in following a specific route. Before attempting the complete climb, Honnold verified that the rubber marks were not removed by the rains. Plus, he has a daily regimen of specific exercises, so many freeclimbs before, etc. A complete professional, not an idiot for sure.
Chark marks explicitly put there to 'tick' hand and food holds -- to make it easier to see the holds and follow the sequence of moves needed. Not rubber marks from shoes.
He's an idiot because he has different values and priorities than you? I'd say that's pretty damn presumptuous. Who are you to tell him (or anyone else) how to live (and die)?
"at his incompetence" ?
Your nickname is aptly chosen, yet the same can't be said of the words in your post.
Honnold climbs without a rope because he can afford to do so.
He may well one day lose his life, but he knows it, and puts much more care in preparing and then stays concentrated on his climbs than most people do when driving a car.
I encourage you to read articles about him, they should help give you some perspective.
What is this? Of course he stays more concentrated than most people when driving a car because one doesn't have to have that kind of concentration when driving a car. Most mistakes while driving a car are not fatal.
Of course it is, but that is also why it IS widely publicized. It is an incredible feat. I get the perspective of not wanting to encourage others to do X or Y, but everyone ultimately is responsible for their own safety with these types of things.
I understand your position but I disagree. Honnold is well aware of the risks and has prepared as necessary to accomplish this feat. The media needs to better report on that aspect.
There will be people trying to imitate this who don't know what they are getting into. In my view he could have shown the same level of accomplishment in a safer way and set an example.
Anybody who tries to imitate this without knowing what they are doing won't make it 10 meters, let alone 1000 meters. To even make it to the face of El Cap, you have to have some idea what you are doing.
The amount of skill development required to even try something like this cannot happen without picking up a deep safety habit along the way. And that habit requires so much preparation to be satisfied for each individual free solo climb that the fast and loose fame and thrill seekers would be turned off, taking to easier, quicker fixes like e.g. BASE jumping.
It gets interesting when you look at the population overlap: more free soloists seem to die BASE jumping than free soloing. That says little about the "per unit" risk, because people can do so many more BASE jumps per year than reasonably prepared free solos. Risk mitigation for BASE jumping tops out pretty fast, risk mitigation for free solo otoh is an iterative process. They probably declare preparation done when they think that having a very rare deadly accident during preparation becomes more likely than having a moderately rare deadly accident in the actual free solo. (Now an on sight free solo, that would be an entirely different story...)
And when they do make the attempt, and fail, and die, they will be fine examples I'm sure. Mr. Honnold is obviously not interested in serving as a safety example, not sure why many here insist he fulfill that role.
The idea that glorified media coverage would make someone think they're capable of free soloing a 3,000' 5.12d who didn't already have that idea in their head is pretty laughable. No one who climbs thinks that just because Honnold does something that they can do it too.
While I agree, I think it's a self-limiting problem: those of us who are completely outside of the sport would look at this and think "wow, what an amazing feat" but never fathom doing it. Those on the inside will know how hard and risky this is.
That's pretty much true of every profession. People on the outside are horrible at understanding the risk, amount of time needed, and how amazing something is. This is one of the examples where the risk and amazement are so extreme that and observer gets in the ballpark on the estimate.
I'm ignorant of climbing, anyone can see this is amazing but I'm glad you said this. No matter how amazing the feat it is reckless behavior. One mistake next time by him and he's dead, same for anyone else attempting it. Is climbing so different to any other activity that makes it so far fetched from making this equivalency: 'I'm so sure this code is solid, if it doesn't compile I should have an instant death'.
I have the same question for this as I do for batsuit flyers.
How on earth do you practice it? You can practice bench pressing by pressing a small weight. You can practice boxing by sparring.
You can't just climb up to a deadly height - which isn't even very much, as people regularly die from falling out windows - and work your way up from there.
You can't just do a little batsuit jump, either. You have to be going fast for the suit to make a difference.
For BASE jumping, many start with sky diving or jumping from relatively easy exits like bridges.
Most free solo climbers climb with a rope for the majority of their climbs, although exceptions like Paul Preuss exist. They often rehearse free solo projects many times on rope before going free solo, although there a notable cases of 'onsight' free solos like Hansjörg Auer's 'Weg durch den Fisch'. In the case discussed here, Alex Honnold apparently climbed Freerider around a dozen times on rope and rehearsed the crux pitch many more times. He did take several falls on the route, one of them spraining his ankle last summer.
There's a mental aspect (chalk = business time) but it's not a placebo. Have someone deadlift with a particular grip with and without chalk, and they'll lift more with the chalk, no question. It helps grip.
Can anything literally be only part placebo? obviously hyperbole, but anyone who has stuck their hand in a chalk bag knows how comforting it is in spite of it being the 7th time on that same rest hold.
On Chamonix-area granite, chalk is essential for me. Makes a huge difference. Definitely depends on the rock and the amount of sweat your hands produce.
When I was a math grad student, most of the other grad students hated getting chalk on their hands because it dried their skin out. Whereas I'd grab extra chalk from the board, and rub it over my hands to keep them dry.
As someone whose best day climbing was a 5.6 route on Yosemite's Cathedral Peak with a guide, I will add that one purpose of chalk might well be for guides to mark where the holds are for their clients.
I won't be doing anything like this, but I can still respect it.
When hiking King's Peak in Utah, my group was plodding along with backpacks for a week-long camp, with food, tents, sleeping gear, and various safety gear. We were passed by a guy in shorts with a water filter bottle who was running to the summit. We met him again many hours later on his way back, when we had not yet reached our day one base camp.
The freedom and purity of just being there with the mountain was compelling, but requires a whole different set of preparation than I have given it.
It's not just removing a helmet, or doing a daredevil risk, it's transforming the experience. Because he wasn't staying over night, he didn't need a tent or sleeping gear. He didn't need a lot of food. He didn't need a backpack to carry it all. Everything he could leave behind allowed him to move faster, improving his experience.
No, climbing without a rope is the purest form of the sport and has been around for longer than nylon ropes and harnesses.
I don't know much about F1 races but I guess say a fairer comparison would be doing time trials alone on the track versus actual races where you risk the collision with other drivers. The former is safer but the latter is more interesting, not just because it's more dangerous.
Like I've said elsewhere, I have no problem with people who want to climb this way, and they're free to do whatever makes them happy. My point is that introducing needless risk doesn't enhance the achievement to me.
Unless I'm seriously missing something about the "sport" of climbing, the point is to climb. My chosen hobby of auto racing involves plenty of risk, but we don't leave our helmets at home to somehow make it more "pure".
Its not only more pure its much faster, if the numbers I found were right by free-soloing el cap Alex Honnold beat his previous speed climing record by 16h (20 to 4h). I'm guessing if removing a helmet increased the speed by 5x many daredevil race car drivers might consider it, its not exactly a safe hobby to start with.
In my understanding it adds to the mental challenge aspect of rock climbing. Think of it as adding difficulty rather than introducing risk. Therefore it could be argued it does enhance the achievement.
For added context, Steph Davis was previously married to Dean Potter (free soloist among numerous other things - mentioned above in the list of famous free soloists) and Mario Richard, both of whom died in wingsuit BASE jumps. Steph Davis is also a BASE jumper using wingsuits and parachutes.
I had a similar reaction. The headlines might as well been "extremely skilled climber makes wildly risky bet and lives to tell the tale."
Sure he's skilled; sure he is strategic. What I want to know is could he do this over and over again without dying? My guess is not. His odds would probably be higher than most others' but still risky.
But in the end, if it's what he wants to do, so be it. To me it's interesting but not something I'd like to do, regardless of the risk. Spending my time climbing rock walls is just not appealing to me, even if it's out in the wilderness, which I love.
Especially so soon after Ueli Steck's death. I first heard about Alex's feat from FB, when I opened it up and saw "Alex Honnold" in the trending stories thing. I said out loud "oh god, no"...and then saw the headline about El Cap.
This article is like celebrating a car accident where the stunt-driver did not wear a seat belt, somewhat reckless and irresponsible like this http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/31/us/skydiver-no-parachute-succe.... It is an extreme sports trend like kiteboarding where getting "better" is equivalent to getting as close as possible to personal harm. :(
Well, thats how he makes a living. If it wasn't for his free solos, Alex Honnold would most likely not be able to be a professional climber.
For those who pay him (sponsors, magazines) its an ethical dilemma for sure. Cliff Bar for instance, recently dropped several athletes including Honold when they decided to no longer support sports that they deemed too dangerous.
