5 ms·

I know a lot of people who engage in dangerous sports, and I have done so myself. None of them do it because of some sense of cheating death - they do it becaus

I know a lot of people who engage in dangerous sports, and I have done so myself. None of them do it because of some sense of cheating death - they do it because it is enormously fun and fulfilling. They walk away when the conditions are not right. If they wanted to cheat death, they would not. The fact that it happens to be extremely dangerous means you take more care, but that is not the source of the pleasure. It's the cost of admission. Some won't pay it. Some will. I really like that you are not judging him. I have seen people dismissed as stupid, as if they don't understand the risks. That's like calling a person stupid if they smoke. They aren't cheating death, they are enjoying cigarettes (and they are addicted, probably). But not stupid or ignorant.

Cyph0n 9y ago
I don't think smoking is a fair analogy. Free climbing is an awe inspiring sport, while smoking is a deadly and addictive habit with zero advantages whatsoever. I first read about free climbing in an issue of National Geographic almost a decade ago. I never once recall thinking that it was "stupid": on the contrary, it quickly jumped up my list of interesting sports (below chess boxing).
- kdbg 9y ago
  Minor correction but a lot of people make the mistake, free climbing is what Ondra did on El Capitan's Dawn Wall last year. Where you climb with ropes but do not use it for any aid in climbing. What Honnold has done is free soloing which is climbing without rope for protection. They sound similar but are significantly different.
EpicEng 9y ago
I don't think your analogy is on point here. This is more akin to playing football without a helmet, or driving a race car without a roll cage. Playing the sport is one thing, but I agree with the parent; what reason aside from tempting fate is there to climb without safety gear?
- cromulent 9y ago
  You are still racing cars, you are still playing football with the safety gear on (although football players in Australia do not wear helmets, and F1 cars don't have roll cages nor even roofs). Perhaps your analogies are off also ;) However, you can climb mountains in different ways and people want to explore the possibilities. Some climbers think bolts are OK, some don't. It's their personal philosophy. They don't get the satisfaction they want if they use bolts, and think they desecrate the climb. So they don't use them. Not because they want to tempt fate, but because they would prefer not to climb things in that way. The reason you ask for is: It's what they want to do. Reinhold Messner climbed mountains without oxygen, without seige tactics, because that's how he thought mountains should be climbed. Not because he wanted to tempt fate by eschewing "safety gear". Wingsuit BASE is much more dangerous than regular BASE. Putting on a wingsuit is the opposite of safety gear - it's dangerous gear. However, it's not done to tempt fate, it's done to gain a different experience. That's what I think Honnold is doing here. He thinks it can be done, he thinks he can do it, and he turns out to be right. Same as Messner.
  - EpicEng 9y ago
    >You are still racing cars, you are still playing football with the safety gear on (although football players in Australia do not wear helmets, and F1 cars don't have roll cages nor even roofs). Perhaps your analogies are off also ;) Sure... I wasn't implying that taking part in dangerous sports is something only adrenaline junkies do; I meant to say that doing so _without taking simple safety precautions_ puts you into that category.
    - cromulent 9y ago
      I am trying to explain that there are different classes of climbing philosophically, not just one activity with or without certain safety related items. "Motor racing without a helmet" = "stupid and pointless", we can probably agree on that. "Climbing Everest without oxygen" != "Climbing Everest as an adrenaline junkie as I have deliberately foregone a safety related item". "Free solo" != "Free climbing as an adrenaline junkie as I have deliberately foregone a safety related item". My family have different risk tolerances and desires than me, but they know me and don't consider me an "adrenaline junkie". I guess we just disagree :)

Cyph0n 9y ago

I don't think smoking is a fair analogy. Free climbing is an awe inspiring sport, while smoking is a deadly and addictive habit with zero advantages whatsoever. I first read about free climbing in an issue of National Geographic almost a decade ago. I never once recall thinking that it was "stupid": on the contrary, it quickly jumped up my list of interesting sports (below chess boxing).

kdbg 9y ago
Minor correction but a lot of people make the mistake, free climbing is what Ondra did on El Capitan's Dawn Wall last year. Where you climb with ropes but do not use it for any aid in climbing. What Honnold has done is free soloing which is climbing without rope for protection. They sound similar but are significantly different.

EpicEng 9y ago

I don't think your analogy is on point here. This is more akin to playing football without a helmet, or driving a race car without a roll cage. Playing the sport is one thing, but I agree with the parent; what reason aside from tempting fate is there to climb without safety gear?

cromulent 9y ago
You are still racing cars, you are still playing football with the safety gear on (although football players in Australia do not wear helmets, and F1 cars don't have roll cages nor even roofs). Perhaps your analogies are off also ;) However, you can climb mountains in different ways and people want to explore the possibilities. Some climbers think bolts are OK, some don't. It's their personal philosophy. They don't get the satisfaction they want if they use bolts, and think they desecrate the climb. So they don't use them. Not because they want to tempt fate, but because they would prefer not to climb things in that way. The reason you ask for is: It's what they want to do. Reinhold Messner climbed mountains without oxygen, without seige tactics, because that's how he thought mountains should be climbed. Not because he wanted to tempt fate by eschewing "safety gear". Wingsuit BASE is much more dangerous than regular BASE. Putting on a wingsuit is the opposite of safety gear - it's dangerous gear. However, it's not done to tempt fate, it's done to gain a different experience. That's what I think Honnold is doing here. He thinks it can be done, he thinks he can do it, and he turns out to be right. Same as Messner.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  >You are still racing cars, you are still playing football with the safety gear on (although football players in Australia do not wear helmets, and F1 cars don't have roll cages nor even roofs). Perhaps your analogies are off also ;) Sure... I wasn't implying that taking part in dangerous sports is something only adrenaline junkies do; I meant to say that doing so _without taking simple safety precautions_ puts you into that category.
  - cromulent 9y ago
    I am trying to explain that there are different classes of climbing philosophically, not just one activity with or without certain safety related items. "Motor racing without a helmet" = "stupid and pointless", we can probably agree on that. "Climbing Everest without oxygen" != "Climbing Everest as an adrenaline junkie as I have deliberately foregone a safety related item". "Free solo" != "Free climbing as an adrenaline junkie as I have deliberately foregone a safety related item". My family have different risk tolerances and desires than me, but they know me and don't consider me an "adrenaline junkie". I guess we just disagree :)