Outside Magazine Article on Honnold....Risk?

bryan swett wrote:I, like many of us, have unexpectedly popped a nubbin in a well established climb before, and taken a good fall, fortunately, with a rope tied to my harness.

You think this has never happened to Alex?

Jeremy Kasmann wrote: You think this has never happened to Alex?

Alex Freakin' Honnold, a nubbin' popper?!! Noooooooooo!

Dead is dead regardless.
Having lost friends who had a rope, no rope or just jumped it always leaves a void.
Look at the highball or ropeless problems that have been done over time.
How much harder is 5.12 or 5.13 than 5.11 thirty, forty years ago in EBs or Pas?
The hardest I ever soloed was 5.10 + so I can not answerer the question.
Soloing sure is safer than some of the inattentive belayers I have witnessed.
But that is a pet peeve I lived through once.

I attended a Colorado Whitewater dinner last week and a similar subject came up. Ben Stookesberry was discussing a trip to Pakistan with a 20 or 21 year old where they were running some Class V/VI rapids. The issue of waterfall running and its inherent danger came up as well. People were so offended at the risks these paddlers were taking. Stookesberry stated a paddler seeking out such dangerous lines has paid his dues over a 'long' period of time and knows what he is getting into; and most likely, they have the ability to successfully navigate those rapids.

The same is true of Honnold. I don't follow him or his exploits, but I take no issue with what he does. He's been successful and has proven he has the ability to successfully free solo. Granted if he keeps it up long enough he go the way of the buffalo and Derek Hersey, but that's his choice.

If someone with dependents is undertaking these activities I am a little more judgemental, but barely. Shane McConkey left a wife and kid behind. He probably didn't have life insurance (I'm sure no one would have insured him anyway). Family and friends suffer as well don't get me wrong, but that different. I've had friends killed and it sucks, but I think its much worse for an individual with a husband/wife/kid to undertake blatantly risky activities.

djkyote wrote:but I would question sponsoring his activity.... and his sponsors, like NF, do just that. I suppose it isn't unprecedented - I'm sure big wave surfers are sponsored, but accessing a wave like Mavericks is a lot more difficult for a teenager than idolizing free-soloing and trying it out on their local crag.

Let teens mimic Honnold. They'll soon know if they are prepared to free solo; not on a level of moral guilt or obligation but pure self-preservational fear. Should they, or anyone, survive such an epic you'll definitely meet a free soloist or you definitely won't.

It's true, no mountain is worth one's life but is it the mountain that we climb for? There are many things worthy of life; what you choose to spend your life on is just that: your choice. I don't find it prudent to criticize someones priorities just because they do not reinforce my own.

Death is and it empties the living, yes. If the safety afforded one by gear encourages them to climb so be it but don't forget that gear, or more often people, fails. Risk is as pervasive as it is serious and the greatest risk is thinking you've removed it.

For me climbing with gear is an acceptable risk. For Honnold climbing without gear is an acceptable risk. May such freedom always exist.

There is no rope that can catch every fall.

I honestly find these conversations quite silly. Anyone who is more than 20 feet off the ground without a rope is aware of the inherent risk. People are free to take whatever risks they please, whether that be climbing, skiing, BASE, mountain biking, etc.

Amazing acts will always be publicized, because people like to see them. Sponsoring a soloist is no more irresponsible than sponsoring a stock-car racer, if someone sees them in the media and then immediately assumes they can pull it off that is simply natural selection. Of course, you are completely free to disagree or paint me as just young and dumb.

Nick Rhoads wrote:As if, Honnold lives his life to satisfy others.

Beautiful.

bryan swett wrote:There is no way that he is choosing to free solo 5.12s for the right reasons. I think it is selfish and stupid.

Ok. what would be a right reason? Because you're about to die anyway or have reached a zen like state as you suggested?

And a wrong reason? To show off perhaps? So soloing for other people would be a wrong reason (i ass.u.me you agree)? Well, if you die for someone else (die for publicity that is), then I don't see how that was very selfish (stupid, yes). Especially when you're giving up your SELF. I can think of few situations where giving up your self (that is, dying) could be considered a selfish act. Dying would be at the opposite end of the spectrum of good for a selfish person. So selfless is the term I think. Stupid and selfless. But let's hope any soloists does it for selfish reasons. ok i'm done

That could be the biggest bullshit explanation I've ever read.

Selfless is putting the needs of others before yourself.
Selfish is putting your needs ahead of others.

Freely expressing yourself is fine but thinking you need to be a dead hero because you think others need to idolize you is a waste.

yeah, mine was an argument of definitions from the beginning. i shouldn't have said anything but here i try

"Selfless is putting the needs of others before yourself."

I said that dying for others would be selfless. Call it his audience's "need." Whatever the case, if he's doing it because an audience will think he's cool, then I would say that he is doing it FOR them. In the case of doing it for publicity, whatever they say is good is what's good. They say it's cool to solo half dome, then you do it. This would be selfless to me. Especially because this particular activity involves putting your life at high risk. Your life is at stake FOR an audience (i.e. not you. maybe you value publicity so much that it would be for "you", but it's still the public calling the shots.). So again, just a battle of definitions. Mine just goes from "need" to "i'd think you're cool if you did that."

"Selfish is putting your needs ahead of others."

As the O.P. stated, As if Honnold lives his life to satisfy others. A selfish Honnold would be soloing because HE wanted to. Again, now my definition is going from "need" to "want"

"thinking you need to be a dead hero because you think others need to idolize you is a waste."

completely agree!

hope i make sense

I have givin up reading Outside after they put an ipod in their gear guide. Its a magazine for arm chair climbers. Risk in climbing? COME ON!!

Yarp wrote:I'm amazed at how many people want to judge this kid and tell him that he shouldn't be making his own decisions...wait...he's how old? 25? Oh...I guess he's not a kid anymore. He's an adult. Older than many, many "kids" that we seem to have no problem throwing into much riskier situations in deserts and mountains all over the world for the benefit of the oil companies and wall street. Let me put it this way...when you see those 4 man squads of american soldiers kicking in doors and clearing houses room by room...take a guess at what the military considers to be an "acceptable" casualty rate for success if it is a high value target? Any idea? How about 75%. That's right. Human life is so precious to us that if only one of those soldiers survives, but we kill the one dude we went in after, we're cool with that and all you assholes are still free to sit around and judge Alex Honnold because you think you know whats better for him that he does. Get the fuck over yourself.

+1

clackmon wrote:http://outsideonline.com/adventure/travel-ga-201105-alex-honnold-free-soloing-sidwcmdev_155533.html man what a piece of shit that was embarrassing

Please elaborate; I thought it was an excellent article, written by probably the best American climber/writer alive today.

As the saying goes, "The bigger the risk, the bigger the reward."

A climber who has never free soloed will never understand the reasons for why some climbers solo. To criticize someone because you can't understand them is foolish and ignorant I think.

Most people here will never understand the reasons for why he has done these things. There is no need to try or to criticize him for it. It is his life and he should be able to live it without judgement. That is in a perfect world.

If he didn't want attention and judgement to be passed on him he would have never told anyone. The fact that people know what he did feeds his ego a bit. He can be humble about it all he wants and shrug it off as no big deal but the fact remains that he made sure someone was there to take pictures and show the world how much of a bad ass he is.

Thats fine with me. Because I know damn well that if I had the skill and talent to pull something like that off, I would want everyone to know! Wouldn't you?

I am all about humility and keeping the ego in check...but we are human beings..humility is not one of our stronger traits.

Francisco Di Poi wrote:To criticize someone because you can't understand them is foolish and ignorant I think. Most people here will never understand the reasons for why he has done these things.

As a parent myself, I think anyone who is willing to take these kinds of risks should sit down and pen, not type, pen a letter to their children explaining to them why they died and why it was so important to do what they do so that they cannot be with their children as they grow. Miss their graduation, marriage etc. After that letter is done....... have at it.

I agree with you Rick. I personally don't think that the risk for me would be justified, especially if you have children!

But no one depends on Alex Honnold for survival the way your kids might. So let him do his thing and appreciate it for what it is. I hope I never have to read an article about Honnold and a soloing accident but if I did I wouldn't be shocked.

A person can live on the edge for only so long before their luck runs out.

djkyote wrote:Sponsoring a soloist is no more irresponsible than sponsoring a stock-car racer, quote> In a car, you have a margin of safety. Many of those guys walk away.

Yes but if you really want to analyze it, those who imitate competitive driving often do so on public highways, endangering all the people around them... I take much more issue with an aggressive driver than an overconfident soloist (not saying Honnold is or isn't overconfident).

What always surprises me about this stuff is that people seem to assume that Honnold and others like him (including pretty much every "extreme alpinist" out there) who has been doing this stuff for any time at all hasn't thought about every single point brought up in this and other threads. Everything I've read or heard about Honnold, at least, makes him seem like an intelligent and thoughtful person, so to think that he has not pondered all of this is basically ridiculous in my view.

Basically what I'm saying is that he was soloing for years before he even got noticed by the media, and he will doubtless be soloing for years into the future, barring a tragic accident. I'd bet Alex Honnold has spent more time thinking about the risks and consequences of free soloing than nearly everyone posting here combined.

One last thought: People here seem to be focusing on his age a lot, and a lot of people have suggested that being in his mid-twenties makes him unqualified to judge how others would feel if he fell, etc. That's young, for sure, but he's hardly a hormonal teenager anymore. I'd almost say that at his young age he has fewer obligations (like dependants) so he's almost more qualified to take those kind of risks. A lot of people do crazy shit when they're young and can afford to take big risks then settle down later. Is the reverse preferable? Thoughts?

apeman e wrote: whatever that means. your argument is retarded.

dang man! argument of definitions = my made up phrase for an argument that is driven only for the sake to correct a definition. an argument *over* definitions. but yeah, i'll stop. sorry

I feel like I have to say something, because I know Alex and have climbed with him, though it's been a while since we crossed paths. I also had a hobby of onsight free soloing for a few years when I was in my early 20s.

First thing to consider is how subjective the difficulty is in our sport. A 5.8 climber might think it's crazy to solo a 5.10 hand crack -- a 5.12 climber on the other hand, who has much more technique, strength and endurance, wouldn't be taking the same kind of risk that the 5.8 climber would. It's all perspective, and that might be the most important element for a soloist when he decides to leave the ground: What occurs in the mind makes a huge difference on any rock climb, especially for a soloist. (In my experience, the place that soloing took my mind and perspective was one of the most addicting aspects.)

I've watched Alex onsight more than one 5.13 in Rifle, including the 140-foot Eighth Day. That guy can hold on forever. He matches a crimp in the middle of a V5 crux halfway up, shakes out, looks around and calmly executes.

When a climber can control himself so well, that stacks more odds in his favor. Being able to pause, breathe, shake out and make smart choices in tough positions means that, in general, that guy can more safely solo some routes than another person with a rope and less poise and experience might.

It all boils down to our personal decisions, which are based on our own perspectives, eh? Someone might over-reach, but who are we to tell him what he can and can't do? I say, if a person's actions don't put me at risk, it's his or her choice.

That said, I do worry a little about Alex and have told him so, even as I admire his ability and like to imagine what other mind-blowing feats he is capable of.

If we didn't have people like Alex around, what might the limits of possibility seem like?

The problem with most high end soloists is that they don't know when to quit--until it's too late.