6 ms·

There is a similar discussion in the rock climbing community about free soloing, which is climbing without any sort of safety gear except climbing shoes and cha

by majos 9y ago

There is a similar discussion in the rock climbing community about free soloing, which is climbing without any sort of safety gear except climbing shoes and chalk. Its foremost practicioner is Alex Honnold, and he produces some amazing photos: https://static.businessinsider.com/image/57bf13b9b996ebef008b474c/image.jpg https://static.businessinsider.com/image/57bf13b9b996ebef008... But a sizable chunk of the climbing community is against publicizing of free solos. Some think it will encourage others, some think the practicioners are irresponsible -- not so much for risking their own lives as commanding rescue resources if they mess up but don't fall and need rescue. Sponsors have an uncertain relationship with the whole thing. I personally think it's fine to publicize free soloing, and the original post here as well. Watching a skilled practicioner like Honnold do it is a unique experience [1] and remarkable just like any demonstration of skill and athleticism in a very high-stakes environment, except perhaps more so. The fact that there is apparently a subset of less-prepared people interested in copying these stunts is unfortunate. A compromise might be to cover the level of preparation that goes into these things rather than just shots of tennis shoes dangling off a crane -- Honnold has said he only started soloing after thousands of hours of climbing -- but in general this is one of those things where the risk is so obvious that I think publicizing it is not really irresponsible. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4c-8xWD1Mk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4c-8xWD1Mk

dahart 9y ago
The same discussion is going on with lots of sports from winguit flying to football. I do wonder if pointing at some people's lack of preparedness or skill is misleading. These choices carry significant risk, regardless of skill. Very experienced mountaineers die every year. Skydivers and base jumpers with decades of experience have accidents. (I knew some, before I chose to stop skydiving.) Suggesting that "experience" will make you safer leaves one with the obvious question of how to gain that experience. It also ignores the fact that more participation in any risky activity is more exposure; the longer you do it, the more likely you are to have an accident.
- majos 9y ago
  To elaborate on my suggestion of emphasizing the experience of people who participate in dangerous activities: the goal would be to communicate that experience is necessary (not sufficient) for safety. I agree that these activities have some constant fraction of risk you can't remove.
  - dahart 9y ago
    I'm 100% with you that preparedness and awareness and skill and experience improve your odds and are good things. But if you want true risk awareness, you must know that experience only improves your odds a small amount compared to the time spent participating in the activity. And, like I said, you still have to gain that experience. Everyone who's experienced went through taking those risks when they were less experienced. Many survived because of luck, not because of experience. Consider it this way: half of all drivers in auto collisions weren't at fault for the accident. You can be the best/safest driver in the world, and you might only reduce your odds of an accident by half. You can beat that easily by cutting your driving to 40%, or eliminate the chance of dying in a car crash by not driving (which might involve an alternative activity that carries it's own risks.) There are similar factors that are out of your control in most risky activities. In rock climbing, there are loose and sharp and slippery grips, there is weather and equipment, and there are often people on the other end of your rope. There are a lot of potential failure points that skill simply doesn't eliminate, whereas time spent in an activity always compounds the risk. Skydive once in a year and you have a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying. If you make 100 jumps in a year, your chances multiply to 1 in 1,000. There is no amount of skill that will overcome the compounded risk of prolonged exposure to an inherently risky activity.
    - Malician 9y ago
      I agree with your greater point, but your auto collision example is flawed. If you say half of drivers are not at fault, it's only because we assume only one person can be at fault. Most collisions involve more than one mistake, and it's certainly possible for a sufficiently good driver to improve their odds by much better than half (there is more to defensive driving than just not making obvious mistakes.) This is not to claim, of course, that perfection is possible. Sometimes the chips are all stacked against you and there is nothing reasonable you can do.
framebit 9y ago
I was just reading about Honnold in the context of this opinion piece from Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/2270296/stop-progression https://www.outsideonline.com/2270296/stop-progression
- abakker 9y ago
  At least WRT to the cycling thing, I can add some color. They aren't normalizing the rate of injury to the rate of participation. Certainly, the mountain bike industry is growing, and a greater number of people doing it guarantees greater numbers of injuries. However, it only takes a brief tour through historic red bull rampage footage to see that gear is getting a lot more capable, and the stunts are getting huge. Watch Kelly McGarry's backflip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0Mr9Z1fhtE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0Mr9Z1fhtE) or Semenuk's big step-downs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqY3LBawDXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqY3LBawDXc). The big question is whether this is really a problem. People have always done big stunts, and always died doing them. At some level, it should be for an individual to decide what risks they want to take, especially in the case of outdoor sports where the risks are more easily contained to only include the participant (unlike driving cars too fast, for example). I'm not sure there is a right answer. I know this is editorializing, but I can't help but think that the relative increases in safety all around us also increase the need for that "risk outlet". Danger and adrenaline are parts of a natural state of being, but we don't encounter wild animals or suffer privation much anymore. Video games might sate that urge, but, for some people it isn't enough. When those people film themselves, they may not only be fulfilling their own need for risk taking, but providing an outlet for others' which creates a feedback loop of fandom, and pushes the drive toward risk. Those athletes that are unwilling to participate in that part of the bargain face difficulty getting sponsorships, views, and to make a living. Social media challenges what it means to "be a professional", where the assumption is that you are good enough to evaluate the risks you are taking, vs just having a gopro, where the only barrier is whether you are entertaining enough to watch. Stories like that in the GP article are ones that put special credence to that distinction. Vitaliy became a pro while on camera. The fact is that we never used to see the progression until after it had happened - when an athlete was already a pro. Now we do.
blubb-fish 9y ago
In my opinion there is humanistic / philosophical difference between somebody risking his life purely for the experience (Honnold does not care for Instagram fame) and somebody for who this is a way to promote him/herself to satisfy narcissistic desires. If you are passionate for something I think it is fine to take risks - this Chinese daredevil was just a bit stupid and a victim of his personality flaws. If Honnold dies climbing - well, that would be very, very sad but that's just that then.
takk309 9y ago
Can this really be put in the same league as what a free solo climber is doing? Most man-made structures are designed to be climbable, with safety gear, for people to maintenance. Rock climbing, on the other hand, forces one to sort out a way to make the climb. As far as having a "head" for heights, I would agree that free solo climbing and climbing buildings is similar. I wonder how well this guy would do on real rock? On a personal note, heights above which I will die from the fall are all the same. 100 feet or 1000 feet are all the same. Now between 20 and about 50 feet, that is where it is scary. That is if I don't have a reasonable backup such as deep water or a rope.
- goldenkey 9y ago
  Perhaps not for this Russian climber as he says he specifically avoids doing any "one-arm pullups" and "superman-like stunts." However, the other daredevils like now-deceased Wu -- died doing a pullup from a building ledge -- he couldn't pull himself back up and then fell and died. So yes, buildings can be considerably safer if one avoids doing the ridiculous stunts.
- majos 9y ago
  You are right that climbing buildings is not directly comparable to free soloing rock. Each has things that make it easier or harder. Rock isn't "meant" to be climbed, but the vast majority of free solo climbs occur after extensive roped rehearsals. Some people do "onsight"/climb without practicing with ropes first, but this is rare, and is essentially only done when the route in question is known to be easy. Buildings are more predictable and regular, but these guys seem to be onsighting everything they do, which is mentally very different.
  - takk309 9y ago
    I agree for sure. There is only one red point free soloist that I can think of. https://www.climbing.com/news/decking-while-soloing/ https://www.climbing.com/news/decking-while-soloing/

by majos 9y ago

dahart 9y ago

The same discussion is going on with lots of sports from winguit flying to football. I do wonder if pointing at some people's lack of preparedness or skill is misleading. These choices carry significant risk, regardless of skill. Very experienced mountaineers die every year. Skydivers and base jumpers with decades of experience have accidents. (I knew some, before I chose to stop skydiving.) Suggesting that "experience" will make you safer leaves one with the obvious question of how to gain that experience. It also ignores the fact that more participation in any risky activity is more exposure; the longer you do it, the more likely you are to have an accident.

majos 9y ago
To elaborate on my suggestion of emphasizing the experience of people who participate in dangerous activities: the goal would be to communicate that experience is necessary (not sufficient) for safety. I agree that these activities have some constant fraction of risk you can't remove.
- dahart 9y ago
  I'm 100% with you that preparedness and awareness and skill and experience improve your odds and are good things. But if you want true risk awareness, you must know that experience only improves your odds a small amount compared to the time spent participating in the activity. And, like I said, you still have to gain that experience. Everyone who's experienced went through taking those risks when they were less experienced. Many survived because of luck, not because of experience. Consider it this way: half of all drivers in auto collisions weren't at fault for the accident. You can be the best/safest driver in the world, and you might only reduce your odds of an accident by half. You can beat that easily by cutting your driving to 40%, or eliminate the chance of dying in a car crash by not driving (which might involve an alternative activity that carries it's own risks.) There are similar factors that are out of your control in most risky activities. In rock climbing, there are loose and sharp and slippery grips, there is weather and equipment, and there are often people on the other end of your rope. There are a lot of potential failure points that skill simply doesn't eliminate, whereas time spent in an activity always compounds the risk. Skydive once in a year and you have a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying. If you make 100 jumps in a year, your chances multiply to 1 in 1,000. There is no amount of skill that will overcome the compounded risk of prolonged exposure to an inherently risky activity.
  - Malician 9y ago
    I agree with your greater point, but your auto collision example is flawed. If you say half of drivers are not at fault, it's only because we assume only one person can be at fault. Most collisions involve more than one mistake, and it's certainly possible for a sufficiently good driver to improve their odds by much better than half (there is more to defensive driving than just not making obvious mistakes.) This is not to claim, of course, that perfection is possible. Sometimes the chips are all stacked against you and there is nothing reasonable you can do.

framebit 9y ago

I was just reading about Honnold in the context of this opinion piece from Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/2270296/stop-progression https://www.outsideonline.com/2270296/stop-progression

abakker 9y ago
At least WRT to the cycling thing, I can add some color. They aren't normalizing the rate of injury to the rate of participation. Certainly, the mountain bike industry is growing, and a greater number of people doing it guarantees greater numbers of injuries. However, it only takes a brief tour through historic red bull rampage footage to see that gear is getting a lot more capable, and the stunts are getting huge. Watch Kelly McGarry's backflip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0Mr9Z1fhtE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0Mr9Z1fhtE) or Semenuk's big step-downs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqY3LBawDXc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqY3LBawDXc). The big question is whether this is really a problem. People have always done big stunts, and always died doing them. At some level, it should be for an individual to decide what risks they want to take, especially in the case of outdoor sports where the risks are more easily contained to only include the participant (unlike driving cars too fast, for example). I'm not sure there is a right answer. I know this is editorializing, but I can't help but think that the relative increases in safety all around us also increase the need for that "risk outlet". Danger and adrenaline are parts of a natural state of being, but we don't encounter wild animals or suffer privation much anymore. Video games might sate that urge, but, for some people it isn't enough. When those people film themselves, they may not only be fulfilling their own need for risk taking, but providing an outlet for others' which creates a feedback loop of fandom, and pushes the drive toward risk. Those athletes that are unwilling to participate in that part of the bargain face difficulty getting sponsorships, views, and to make a living. Social media challenges what it means to "be a professional", where the assumption is that you are good enough to evaluate the risks you are taking, vs just having a gopro, where the only barrier is whether you are entertaining enough to watch. Stories like that in the GP article are ones that put special credence to that distinction. Vitaliy became a pro while on camera. The fact is that we never used to see the progression until after it had happened - when an athlete was already a pro. Now we do.

blubb-fish 9y ago

In my opinion there is humanistic / philosophical difference between somebody risking his life purely for the experience (Honnold does not care for Instagram fame) and somebody for who this is a way to promote him/herself to satisfy narcissistic desires. If you are passionate for something I think it is fine to take risks - this Chinese daredevil was just a bit stupid and a victim of his personality flaws. If Honnold dies climbing - well, that would be very, very sad but that's just that then.

takk309 9y ago

Can this really be put in the same league as what a free solo climber is doing? Most man-made structures are designed to be climbable, with safety gear, for people to maintenance. Rock climbing, on the other hand, forces one to sort out a way to make the climb. As far as having a "head" for heights, I would agree that free solo climbing and climbing buildings is similar. I wonder how well this guy would do on real rock? On a personal note, heights above which I will die from the fall are all the same. 100 feet or 1000 feet are all the same. Now between 20 and about 50 feet, that is where it is scary. That is if I don't have a reasonable backup such as deep water or a rope.

goldenkey 9y ago
Perhaps not for this Russian climber as he says he specifically avoids doing any "one-arm pullups" and "superman-like stunts." However, the other daredevils like now-deceased Wu -- died doing a pullup from a building ledge -- he couldn't pull himself back up and then fell and died. So yes, buildings can be considerably safer if one avoids doing the ridiculous stunts.
majos 9y ago
You are right that climbing buildings is not directly comparable to free soloing rock. Each has things that make it easier or harder. Rock isn't "meant" to be climbed, but the vast majority of free solo climbs occur after extensive roped rehearsals. Some people do "onsight"/climb without practicing with ropes first, but this is rare, and is essentially only done when the route in question is known to be easy. Buildings are more predictable and regular, but these guys seem to be onsighting everything they do, which is mentally very different.
- takk309 9y ago
  I agree for sure. There is only one red point free soloist that I can think of. https://www.climbing.com/news/decking-while-soloing/ https://www.climbing.com/news/decking-while-soloing/