Jon wrote:Obviously some of you STILL miss the point. Yeah 12 feet can kill you, MAYBE. 2,000 feet duh no question. Short of the original blow of lech, tell me where in a cave with a TON of open space you can get a 50 MPH gust. That ONE thing alone proves my point. This private and humble guy had 6 video photographers covering his private and personal moments. It was broadcast on a major network show and if you want to discuss this any further I will require that you watch Idiocracy. Do you think for one minute that winning the Indy 500 would be somehow private, personal and sensible with an onboard camera showing some putz in a speedo with no seat belts, no helmet, no nomex suit and no Hans Device? ( For you non racers a Hans Device would have kept Dale Earnharts head screwed on in the VERY MINOR collision with the wall that he had) And yes for all you 12 foot fatality people, you could die from rolling out of your bed. Hell you COULD trip over your shoelace and die. Quit comparing a flea to a grizzly. Dump all your excuses this was a plain and stupid stunt. I doubt this kid will live to be a legend in his own time. And no, at this time I say he is a fool in his own time. Pardon the cliche, there are old free solo climbers and there are bold free solo climbers but there are no old bold free solo climbers. Quit living out your own unobtainable fantasies through this kid.
You appear to have two problems with this particular case where the climb: firstly was recorded and publicised and a secondly, a separate argument against solo climbing as an activity in itself.
For the first argument, that the climb was recorded and its broadcast may influence others, well that is a matter of opinon and I'm not interested in that argument.
As for the rsisk in involved in solo climbing (whether climbing 'free', where the climber only uses the holds offered by the rock or 'aid', where the climber uses artificial implements to assist with the climb - "solo" just means alone and you can solo a free climb or an aided one). well, of course there is a risk.
"Traditional" climbing, where protection is placed while climbing and then removed afterwards so that you are restricted to where you can protect yourself depending on the cracks, etc. offered by the rock (as opposed to "Sport" climbing where protection is normally guranteed by artificial bolts placed in the rock at intervals designed to keep any falls to a safe distance) always has an inherent risk. It is part of the "game". "Sport" climbing has this name because risk is removed as much as possible, the climber is only interested in the technical difficulty of getting up the route.
Traditional climbing has an element of adventure where it is expected that there will be a level of risk: it's "part of the game". Of course you try and minimise the risk: but the risk is there and without it, it just isn't climbing. Otherwise why not always climb with a top rope where there is a single pitch like an inddor climbing wall where you are very unlikely to hit the ground after a fall? Why take a risk and place protection while actually climbing - you could abseil down and place it then clomb the route afterwards? Or why climb the rock at all: there's nearly always an easy way up.
The leader will climb from the ground up and place protection as he goes, where he can find any. Most climbing rope are around 50 metres in length (165 feet), so a single 'pitch' could be well over a 100 feet. The fact that the route soloed in the video is well over that distance is irrelevant: a fall from either would be just as fatal.
If the climber were to fall off a route, hopefully he won't hit the ground or anything else on the way down as long as the distance above the last piece of protection is less than the distance to the ground (ignoring rope stretch).
Sometimes a climber falls and the protection comes out because it wasn't placed properly or because it was a poor placement and that's all there was. Sometimes there just wasn't anywhere to place protection for a long part of the pitch and they fell from near the top. This wouldn't be a surprise as the grade of the climb and description in the guide book would mean the climber was aware of the risks.
The end result maybe serious injury or death. And such incidents ARE NOT RARE. I live in the UK and you only have to look at Mountain Rescue Teams insident reports to see that injuries from climbers falling
while roped happens fairly often.
Part of the reason why people climb is because it is risky.
Some climbers will "up the ante" and climb a route solo, often well within their abilites as it will be several grades lower than the hardest climbs they regularly do and will be a route they have climbed before. I have done many times and I know of many climbers who have done likewise. Why? Because when you reach the top the feelings and emotions you get are much greater. Not because you're still alive despite the risk, but because you feel more alive.
I'm sorry but your cliche "there are old free solo climbers and there are bold free solo climbers but there are no old bold free solo climbers" is just totally wrong. There are plenty, although many of them don't climb at the highest levels nowadays with advancing age.
After all, the odds of dying are MUCH, MUCH greater while climbing at high altitude than soloing a rock climb, and I don't hear people tut-tutting when the latest film of some mountaineers climbing an 8.000 meter peak in the Himalaya is broadcast...