NEClimbs.com forum

General => Beginners Area => Topic started by: lucky luke on February 14, 2012, 08:54:36 pm

Title: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on February 14, 2012, 08:54:36 pm
I red the post "entire route collapse" in "enjury section" and I know that some people don't even go to the cliff to see the ice, go to the cliff and bail or go to the cliff and climb. Those three person in any situation, will have the same behavior. Too much risk or not enought? Sure, we are going to say that we are in the middle.

But how do you estimate your level of risk? for myself, my limits is a major inury. I accept a broken arm or leg. When I make my estimation, if the danger is higher...I bail. what is your limit?
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DWT on February 14, 2012, 09:24:37 pm
I can't think of one time I thought to myself "I guess I'd be cool with a broken arm or leg today".  When I get to the base of a climb I'm always thinking "what is the safest way to climb this, where's the gear, and where's the next belay".  Everyone's climbed on without having all the answers, but a broken arm.  HUH?
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: apbt1976 on February 14, 2012, 09:55:26 pm
I can't think of one time I thought to myself "I guess I'd be cool with a broken arm or leg today".  When I get to the base of a climb I'm always thinking "what is the safest way to climb this, where's the gear, and where's the next belay".  Everyone's climbed on without having all the answers, but a broken arm.  HUH?

In Champ's defense i get what he is saying. I accept a injury within reason if something out of my control is to happen or in the case i majorly fuck up! I do not accept sure death or a brain injury.

I am not saying these are the rules i play by or what i think "AT ALL" but my guess is that this is maybe what he is saying? If so it makes perfect sense to me. Again not what i think when i look at a pitch of ice but?

My opinion is that just about any of the above scenario are a possible anytime we step on ice. Maybe more maybe less depending on conditions weather so forth and so on and a bunch of other variables that are often somewhat within our control but ultimately out of our control when it really comes down to it.

Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DLottmann on February 14, 2012, 09:58:28 pm
LOL, “accept a broken arm or leg”.

You are funny.

IRL, every one has their own personal level of risk acceptance. Your’s sounds particularly high but who am I to judge.

To answer your question, we all sense “perceived risk” whether or not our perception is in line with actual risk. Then we act, whether it be to send the route, take the whipper, or go home and try later when we are stronger.

Personally, and simply put, if I think there’s a good chance I’ll get hurt I don’t do it... hero ice climbing included.

If you’re dying for a number let’s say if I calculate a 13.75% chance or higher of getting hurt I back off. Is that what you’re looking for?
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on February 14, 2012, 10:38:12 pm
I'm always thinking "what is the safest way to climb this, where's the gear, and where's the next belay".  Everyone's climbed on without having all the answers, but a broken arm.  HUH?

Of course, I'm thinking "what is the safest way to climb...and what is the more fun. At cathedral, the safest is upper refuse, but black lung is more fun...and book of solenity (5.9+)... It is obvious that we don't climb to be injure.

You climb an ice route and, after the first pitch,  you have to take a decision to traverse hight or low to a column of 45 feet. If you traverse high, it is on rock and you can fall on your back in 25% of the case. The chance to go to the other side is 70%. If you traverse low, it is ice and you can broke your leg in a fall in 5% of the case. The chance to go to the other side is 50%. Are you going to bail or to try a move?   

It is more that kind of question that I like to discuss. I thing that I will try it at 50% with a lower chance to broke my leg. In any case, going above our last pro is taking a risk. In fact, I am not good at mixe climbing. Ha ha     
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: The other tomcat on February 14, 2012, 10:52:32 pm
I wish I was that confident. For me yes, I end up making decisions that ask " would I die or just break something"  Not saying I do this often, but, we are just talking about rare circumstance I presume, not a way of life. It usually has to be something I want, not stumble into.

I clip the first bolt on Revolt, the 5.9+ pitch, with a locker, but I'm pretty sure I'd break something if I blow the next clip.

For sure I've covered a lot of poorly protected crappy dirty grassy shyte I could'a died on, and no I wouldn't say I always had it under control...lol.

I'm inclined to think many of the Rp's and small wires and small  cams might not have held all the time.And without the odds change

Really, hard ground, most of it, has good protection, or at least as hard as I have climbed. It's the rest.

Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: sneoh on February 14, 2012, 11:34:16 pm
Call me chicken, call me yellow, but a one-in-200 chance (by my perception) of getting a broken limb is about as high as a risk I am willing to take on anything these days.  In my current condition, the chance of getting an injury from training is not nearly as low as I like so any significant chance of getting benched for 3 to 6 months due to a broken limb is just not acceptable. 
DMan made a good point, the 'real' level of risk is often not in line with our perceived risk.  I know I tend to overestiamte the level of risk.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: slink on February 15, 2012, 06:40:44 am
Freedom of the hills says stay in control and do not fall :)   So Champ why would you accept breaking a limb???
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: tradmanclimbz on February 15, 2012, 07:09:44 am
Gee wiz thelma, I think I would like a broken leg today.. preferably an open spiral fracture ::)


If you continually take a 1 in 100 chance that gives you a 100% chance of getting hurt if you climb  over 100 days...   learned that in pistol competition. If your gun only malefunctions once every 100rds  it is a 100% garuentee to get a jam in the competition as they usually averages 125 rounds fired.

I rarely make a move that I am not 100% certain is going to work out ok..  It happens but not too often.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: The other tomcat on February 15, 2012, 07:44:50 am
I've climbed with Champ, and he seems not any more or less a risk taker than others I know from here. I do think different posters here may have very different perceptions of the possibility of injury,particularly on trad climbs.

I hang on something just about any time I go out and climb around my limit for a day, at some point, but fall very little. But I've seen people take falls and get hurt doing the routes just the same way I approached them. Intimidation being one ( didn't see but happened to a friend).

I'd have not the least idea how to determine if it's 1/100, 1/200, 1/1000, so maybe you guys can educate me on that part.

Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DLottmann on February 15, 2012, 08:05:56 am
If you continually take a 1 in 100 chance that gives you a 100% chance of getting hurt if you climb  over 100 days...

Not to split hairs here but that statement is false.

Since we’re talking guns, think Russian Roulette. You might die first game. You may never die. A 1/6 chance does not mean you’ll definitely die if you play 6 rounds, as the chamber gets spun each turn.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on February 15, 2012, 09:29:51 am
I'd have not the least idea how to determine if it's 1/100, 1/200, 1/1000, so maybe you guys can educate me on that part.

Hi Tom.

It is mostly the question.

As a beginer, I was climbing in remote area in Quebec. My biggest fear was to be trap high above my last pro with nothing else to do than jumping. So, I began to try to evaluate when I can go and why I should bail. Bailing is some times more painfull than risking as you remember for many year that you should have try... Fortunately, I began at a low level, 5.7 in remote area. It is close to a route like recompense. When I trained, going to the top was not an objective any more. But learning the limit of a movement was the goal. In ice, I trained pure technique (just crampon, crampon and one ice axe, pidgeon hole...etc) and at the end of the day, I did top rope very fast to understand what was my mistake. When I wasn't in overtraining, my technique was better than today. As I lead, and as Sneoh explain on overestimating the risk, my evaluation of  risk change. There is real risk and false one. Someone soloing with 100% chance of doing the move is less careless than a newbye going out of the gym. But try to tell to a 19 years old guy who climb 5.11 in a gym that he didn't have the experience of a 5.7 climber. Try to explain that, as you know more technique, you have a better idea of how to evaluate the other climber and, by imitation of good climber, you can improve in safety.

As for the 1/100, 1/1000 I can not explain it for other as I don't know the physical condition and difference of reach of the other. It is understainable for people with some academic background. I always try to climb with people of different level. Some times, beginer are more natural than old one. Actually, I like to climb with very experience climber, Base, Steeve Arsenault, Joe Cote, Georges Hurley, etc. There is a very good description of a technical climber on the forum, Bouchard, climbing repentence this winter. All them climb so naturally with good technique and they are so generous to show you your mistake ( as when you have hard time to do a move for fifteen minutes and he came after with the question: could I? And do the move very easily). Or climbing the book of sol... in a 5.10+ variation to see if you read the rock at 5.9 or follow what the leader did. Climbing with your girl friend some week end and finally going to the big one with a good friend. In all that, it is not a solution that someone told you, but an accumulation of good and bad experiences who bring you to the evaluation of a movement and it seriousness.

So, I don't know for you at to calculate the risk, but I know for me. As much I climb in different area, better is my evaluation.

           
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: The other tomcat on February 15, 2012, 12:25:05 pm
Ok,so just to kick this along a bit I will ask as best I can, with absolutely no intention of insult to any climbing user group. Over the years the slingshot approach has gained a lot of acceptance. Back when I was a puppy in the Gunks, I just about never lowered off. Now I understand that the demographic is much bigger and broader, but damn, even a lot of super experienced, daredevil leaders, thinking say say Romano, Hill, a score of others, have been seriously injured while lowering, yet I doubt anyone here perceives the practice as being risky.

Do you ever notice how really few injuries are the result of going for it on hard terrain with less than perfect gear? People get hurt running out easy ground and breaking a hold, they get their leg caught in a loop of rope over their shoulder and pitch off,etc.

To me that lowering and gri-gri's seem the most dangerous thing going on. I don't own a gri-gri because I hardly ever single rope.

I know two guys lot's of you know, brothers, who both have had serious accidents in the last few years, doing the exact same stuff we all do regularly. So I'm saying I'm not sure we really even have a clear picture of where the real risks are. I finally learned to put my helmet on when I am at the bottom of the clift (had to do that), NOT when I start the lead.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: tradmanclimbz on February 15, 2012, 05:05:33 pm
Lowering is definatly a big one...and it puts more wear on your rope than just about anything else that you do climbing.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on February 15, 2012, 06:03:30 pm
Lowering is definatly a big one...and it puts more wear on your rope than just about anything else that you do climbing.

So we have people who don't want to take risk, be lower regularly. Evaluating our level of risk is not so easy.As tom said, we are not in a death/life situation at each day. What his the opinion of those who was in dangerous situation more than once and how they evaluate there level of risk. For example, Steve Arsenault describe his fall in the prow and climb to the top after a fall of close to 100 meters... How those experiences change our way to climb?   
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: The other tomcat on February 15, 2012, 09:02:52 pm
That one would change my underwear to climb....lol...
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on February 17, 2012, 06:08:04 am
That one would change my underwear to climb....lol...

Ha ha good one.

I don't think that his level of risk is too hight. I think that he have a lot of experience. Maybe it was an epic and he didn't really have the choice to bail.

As a beginer, you can learn to see the danger or you can learn to make a move. When you learn to make a move...it is very secure and you can do difficult movement without fear. When you see the danger, when the danger is too big too fast, some people will bail and never climb against. when you see just the danger, you are not able to make a move without fear. So, you have to see the movement too.  Is it that relation, between a potential risk of injury and a potential risk of making a movement, which is the level of risk?
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: tradmanclimbz on February 17, 2012, 07:07:38 am
Maybe he just got lucky? I have taken 30ft upside down gear rippers and survived.. Experience and skill kept me alive on a sketchy rout yet bed decisions made me fall on a sketchy route and then there was luck that also stepped in and kept me from getting hurt...
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: fresh on February 17, 2012, 03:47:11 pm
If you continually take a 1 in 100 chance that gives you a 100% chance of getting hurt if you climb  over 100 days...   learned that in pistol competition. If your gun only malefunctions once every 100rds  it is a 100% garuentee to get a jam in the competition as they usually averages 125 rounds fired.
like DMan said this isn't quite right, but I think about this stuff a lot so I'll flesh it out.

it's easier to calculate the chance of it NOT happening. if you want, subtract that number from one to get the chance that it WILL happen.

so if you take a 1 in 100 chance 100 times, the chance of it not happening is 99/100 to the 100th power.

(99/100) ^ 100 = .366

so there's a .366 chance that everything will be ok. there's a .634 chance that it'll happen once (or more than once!) in those 100 times.

some other numbers:

(199 / 200)^100 = 0.606
(999 / 1,000)^100 = 0.905
(9 999 / 10 000)^100 = 0.990

so if you go climbing 100 days a year, and accept a 1/200 chance of a catastrophe once each day, there's almost a 40% chance that you'll have a catastrophe in that year. if you follow that policy for 10 years, that chance rises to 99%.

it sounds kind of morbid to say, "today I accept a 1/1000 chance of breaking a leg", but actually I think it's ignorant to pretend that the risks we take can't be seen in those terms. but usually choices in climbing don't have to be gambles, they just become gambles when we're not accurate in our observations.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DLottmann on February 17, 2012, 08:14:14 pm
WOW Fresh! MIND = Blown. I totally agree with your numbers, but that’s mainly because I am not that good at math :)

I’m +1ing your post for this though, as I think it is MOST relevant:

"but usually choices in climbing don't have to be gambles, they just become gambles when we're not accurate in our observations."
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on February 17, 2012, 08:27:54 pm
so if you go climbing 100 days a year, and accept a 1/200 chance of a catastrophe once each day, there's almost a 40% chance that you'll have a catastrophe in that year. if you follow that policy for 10 years, that chance rises to 99%.

it sounds kind of morbid to say, "today I accept a 1/1000 chance of breaking a leg", but actually I think it's ignorant to pretend that the risks we take can't be seen in those terms. but usually choices in climbing don't have to be gambles, they just become gambles when we're not accurate in our observations.

As a mathematical description, it is very interesting. We understand that we can estimate a level of risk. People with higher level have bigger chance to be injure. I ask the question to myself a couple of time, should I stop climbing because I was lucky. The tread is how you evaluate your level of risk. If you do the same movement one hundred time, it is possible to apply pure mathematical relation. But if you climb onsight....How can you evaluate a mathematical risk of injury.

Saying a broken leg or arm means that I understand the dynamic of fallen, the rope strech, my body placement, how to place my pro, my reaction under stress, etc. Because to evaluate the result of a fall, I must know that. In sport, the bolt are place by other to be safe. there is not  a real reason to do that. In top rope, the fall is smaller, but when you climb in second... you can fall with a long rope elongation. So, the fall will be close to a small lead fall.

In the case of Steeve Arsenault, he climbed 1000 routes, and more. Harder and more difficult. For a strong climber like him, lucky is a general term to say that his system work. He use a good technique, verify is belay, double check knot instinctively as he know that he can make a mistake and that the rock decide where he is going. As we use your mathematical description, he should be death for a long time. What is his level of risk versus what is his level of knowledge. He had many experiences. Some harder than the other for sure. Compare with the experioence of those who bail at the first sign of snow or difficulty...       
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DLottmann on February 17, 2012, 08:44:32 pm
... Compare with the experioence of those who bail at the first sign of snow or difficulty...     

Even the most experienced pro climbers know when to bail when they sense they are in over their head. That’s why they are still here. We’ve all debunked Tradman’s mathematical equation as being false, so no, Steve should not be dead. And no, “lucky” is not the right term for someone who has applied careful risk management in many extreme situations.

We’ve all had “many experiences”. I still can’t figure out what it is you are trying to say, and I try so hard to...
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: sneoh on February 17, 2012, 09:05:47 pm
Thanks for the contribution, fresh.

so if you go climbing 100 days a year, and accept a 1/200 chance of a catastrophe once each day, there's almost a 40% chance that you'll have a catastrophe in that year. if you follow that policy for 10 years, that chance rises to 99%.
Note that 40% chance is condition upon one taking the 1/200 level of risk at least once each AND every day of the 100 days of climbing in the example fresh gave above.  Does one always go to the limit of one's level of risk every time one goes out?  I can't speak for everyone but I certainly do not.  Otherwise, I would have had many broken limbs over the past 20 years.

True, any number one gives for chance of injury - 1/100, 1/200, 1/1000 is a guess, hopefully a best guess (based on many factors with experience being one of them).  And, more importantly, one is usually conservative and tends to overestimate the chance of injury.  As a species, we have plenty of self-preservation 'instincts' embedded in our genes.

And, Champ, the level of risk you yourself proposed for discussion here is broken limb, not loss of life so I am not sure where you are going with the "he should be death for a long time." business.  And, I apologize ahead of time for indiscretion and possibly outright rudeness, I believe SA has broken a limb climbing.  In fact, the 1st time I met him (at Crow Hill), I seem to recall him having a cast on but climbing hard nonetheless.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on February 18, 2012, 06:28:28 am
Note that 40% chance is condition upon one taking the 1/200 level of risk at least once each AND every day of the 100 days of climbing in the example fresh gave above.  Does one always go to the limit of one's level of risk every time one goes out?  I can't speak for everyone but I certainly do not.  Otherwise, I would have had many broken limbs over the past 20 years.

Sneoh I ask how you calculate your level of risk. If you went to go in the math, not on the rock. that is O.K. for me. Personally, if I can broke my leg or and arm, I will go for it. If the risk is greater (vertebrae of hips) I will bail. It is what I am doing in the cliff and when I do an onsight...I can not measure a percentage of falling.

If you like the maths, This is O.K. The hypothesis of Fresh is false. when you calculate a level of fall, you most measure the chance of a fall. It could be ten time or less at each one hundred climb in trad. So, the chance of a fall is 10 percent. From that, there is 3 to 4 chances to be injure on 100 falls. so you need to climb a thousand of route to have three or four injury. It is the ratio of SA that you gave in your description. From those injury, some can be fatal, very important and minor. Now you need to climb three thousand route to have one chance ( :D) to died.

Sneoh, I know that you are a good guy, we are in a beginer forum. Do you think that a different point of view can be helpfull for those people who like to do trad climbing and can be interested, not to have the advice of the king of the mountain, but to understand all the aspect of climbing?
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DLottmann on February 18, 2012, 07:00:59 am
The world as Champ sees it:

1010010001000010001010001001010101001001001010
0101001010101001101001000100001000101000100101
01010010010010100101001010101001101001000100001
1010010001000010001010001001010101001001001010
0101001010101001101001000100001000101000100101
1010010001000010001010001001010101001001001010
0101001010101001101001000100001000101000100101
01010010010010100101001010101001101001000100001
1010010001000010001010001001010101001001001010
0101001010101001101001000100001000101000100101

Oh shit, there’s a glitch in the Matrix. I better back off this route before I break my hips.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: strandman on February 18, 2012, 11:09:26 am
Should this really be in the beginner forum ?

According to the math.. i should have died in a fall July, 1987.  ???

You cannot calculate the odds of breaking a leg, or a wrist or anything in climbing. You just can't do it.The difficulty of the route doesn't matter or anything else .
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: steve weitzler on February 18, 2012, 12:23:25 pm
If you are worried about the risks in climbing take up bowling!!
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on February 18, 2012, 02:30:56 pm
Should this really be in the beginner forum ?

According to the math.. I should have died in a fall July, 1987.  ???

Lucky??? I kidding you. It was a close call for sure.

I think that beginer more than any body else have to know abut that. I was we my partner and his friend is a vedry good guide. One day, we were at the bottom of cathedral and we saw marc coming down with his client saying: "it is important what I saying to you" He was teaching one of that lucky comportment that will save his life in the futur.

All climber do some thing instinctively. When some one ask us, why are you doing that? Our answer is I don't know. All that little technique that we apply because one day we thinks that it is going to save our life in trad can not be explain. But every climber will say, I am lucky to still doing it because today, it save my life.

Try to explain at a gym climber, 5.11 at his first six month,  that he never learn the trick!!! It is impossible. if we talk about where are you going to fall, what if you hit a ledge, what if your hand is trap in a crack or your feet, what if you tied that way or this way...etc.  We all know that a 5.9 crack is different than a 5.9 slab. and that some people can be very good in slab and can not climb a crack because the technique is different. Why beginer should know there level of risk because they climb in a gym and how they can learn it? It is a beginer question.

In mountaineering freedom of the hill, they don't teach the good and bad way to do some thing. It is a bible of all possibility in climbing (edition up to fifth edition, after it is more a do that do this book). If you try to do one technique per week, one hour per week, yor level of knowledge will be a lot higher. When you choose a guide, do you want a do this or do that relation or a why should I have do to that, I am scare...relation? a good guide, in trad, will bring you to see the danger in a way that you will protect yourself when you are going to climb alone with your partner.

But how a beginer can estimate is level of risk?     
 

Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DGoguen on February 18, 2012, 04:52:32 pm
But how a beginer can estimate is level of risk?   

I'm not saying it's wrong, but I don't think I have ever met anyone so intent on quantifying subject matter, again and again, that has so many variables.

The beginners will figure it out just like everybody else did, and be stronger for it. They will do some stupid things, for sure, who hasn't.
Some won't figure it out even with the best advantages money can buy.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: strandman on February 18, 2012, 06:30:13 pm
Right on D
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on February 18, 2012, 08:01:18 pm
But how a beginer can estimate is level of risk?   
I'm not saying it's wrong, but I don't think I have ever met anyone so intent on quantifying subject matter, again and again, that has so many variables.

The beginners will figure it out just like everybody else did, and be stronger for it. They will do some stupid things, for sure, who hasn't.

Curiously, Dave, I don't quantifying any thing in the level of risk. Determining a level of risk with a broken arm is a qualitative description. It is opposed to a percentage of risk, a very quantifying way. It is what fresh and Dman discuss before. Note that I gave the matematical description because I thought often of how to describe the level of risk.

Before, a beginer go to the cliff and learn how to climb. A lot of good climber, climb and climb every day. Today, they go to the gym, have many magasine, and internet. They have bolt and new equipment.

Unfortunately, a beginer today can not figure it out like you did because they know how to climb 5.11 before how to climb safely.
   
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: Admin Al on February 18, 2012, 08:27:50 pm
If you are worried about the risks in climbing take up bowling!!

+++

that made it into the quotes database...
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DLottmann on February 18, 2012, 08:36:08 pm
No, Champ, you are WRONG. Just because a person may learn 5.11 in the gym doesn’t mean they don’t have the same opportunity to learn to climb safe as Dave, Strand, Robert Underhill, and everyone else did. If anything the modern information age probably reduces the amount of people lead climbing on clothesline.

Big picture-wise we all still learn the same shit we did in the 1930’s. Regardless of internet and bolt. The process is the same. Trial and error, professional instruction or “friend of a friend who learned how to climb in the Scouts (and everything in between).

A beginner either learns “level of risk” from a knowledgable partner, on their own through trial & error, with a climbing guide... or.... ALL THREE as I did from 15 to 22 years of age, when I started guiding.

Here’s the thing, at 34 years (19 years of climbing), I’m STILL learning. It doesn’t stop. You don’t reach some god-like awareness by trad climbing. You are not always safe sport climbing.

Your generalizations, assumptions, and attempts at quantifying un-quatifiable ideas are becoming so tiring. Let it go man. LOL. “Let it go”. I should practice what I preach.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: tradmanclimbz on February 19, 2012, 07:14:47 am
I actually agree on one of champs points here. gym climbers in their first year outside climb way stronger than we ever did when we were starting out but they are just as stupid as we were which leads them into getting in troubble on much harder climbs than we did.  Get in over your head on a 5.5 on one of your early leads and chances are very good you will not fall.. the same can not be said about 5.9+ and  sometimes these 5.11 climbing gym rats seem to think 9+ should be easy... Seen some scary crap and one broken ankle over this mindset.. wait , that shouldn't bother champ, he is willing to risk broken leg to get up climb that the risk sport could not realize  the gym climber :P
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on February 19, 2012, 11:33:39 am
Seen some scary crap and one broken ankle over this mindset.. wait , that shouldn't bother champ, he is willing to risk broken leg to get up climb that the risk sport could not realize  the gym climber :P

It is right!  it is my limit of risk, when done consciently. In Quebec, we had a guy who place a pro in a crack and rest on it like what they do in a gym or in sport route. The pro fail and he died. I didn't say anything. Second accident, the climber was over a tv plate. it is a hole in a whaterfall (when the water fall, the air go throught the ice and made it very brittle). The guy climb on it and felt inside, between the ice and the rock. An other one, a couple, they had two children each. They felt from a portaledge because they didn't stay tie in with the rope on the wall.

I began to talk and was very disagreable to those people who said that it is safe just to attrack client. As we don't have old climber in quebec, the sport ethic was stronger than in north Conway. As they make a banalisation of the danger and they give the impression that they are strong climber because they climb high grade, they attract a lot of newbye. The ethic bottom up is' pratically inexistant these days. Actually, climbing at Canon is consider very dangerous because few people have the knowledge. did you really think that there was no rock fall in the early age?

Actually, I think that it will be wise to make a distinction between sport and trad. Some like competition and emulation of a group, some like the chalenge and partnership of an expedition even of few hour. I understand that some are between sport and trad and look for both or some aspect of it. But it will avoid replics like: if you are a climber, he will come back...as the ice colapse in what they be told a safe place.

Knowing our level of risk, or when to bail, is important in anybody who don't use bolt (except bouldering)     
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DGoguen on February 19, 2012, 04:33:56 pm
Actually, I think that it will be wise to make a distinction between sport and trad.   
Bingo. Full circle.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DGoguen on February 19, 2012, 05:03:34 pm
Curiously, Dave, I don't quantifying any thing in the level of risk. Determining a level of risk with a broken arm is a qualitative description.

That's an awful lot of numbers for not quantifying something.

You climb an ice route and, after the first pitch,  you have to take a decision to traverse hight or low to a column of 45 feet. If you traverse high, it is on rock and you can fall on your back in 25% of the case. The chance to go to the other side is 70%. If you traverse low, it is ice and you can broke your leg in a fall in 5% of the case. The chance to go to the other side is 50%. Are you going to bail or to try a move?     

The last line should read " What time does the train arrive in Chicago"
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on February 19, 2012, 06:06:28 pm

But how do you estimate your level of risk? for myself, my limits is a major inury. I accept a broken arm or leg. When I make my estimation, if the danger is higher...I bail. what is your limit?

Dave. The question is how you estimate your level of risk. Estimation is for me a broken leg or arm. I don't accept a major injury. and there is no quantifying thing, it is qualitative. Fest make a quantitative

If you change the question and ask me what his my chance to make a traverse. I can exprime it in percentage. It is one variable to know in the level of risk. Presence of a ledge is an other variable in the level or risk. I took every think to be safe and never trust someone who told me just do that without any advice.

How do you estimate the possiblity to make a move? You certainly have a good answer to it. You practice in top rope and when you are sure to make the move, your don't have to estimate it? Old crag climber always talk at the bottom of the cliff and they change there way of thinking to a better one. There is always exception.     
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DGoguen on February 19, 2012, 07:23:47 pm
Dave. The question is how you estimate your level of risk. Estimation is for me a broken leg or arm. I don't accept a major injury.
Have you ever seriously broken an arm or a leg while climbing?  Like multiple bones, foot going the other way broken.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DLottmann on February 19, 2012, 07:50:45 pm
I’m sure he hasn’t because he practices “body x position” all the time...
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on February 19, 2012, 08:08:59 pm
Have you ever seriously broken an arm or a leg while climbing?  Like multiple bones, foot going the other way broken.

I was lucky not to have to much injury. ordinarly, I fall twice a year. More than ounce, I made mistake and could have be injure... more than a leg. I had two injury. The first one, I was very lucky because I undercling a loose block being careless. the block cut my rope at six places. The second, is not really in the cliff. I had a shoulder dislocation. I climb often in remote area where the only human being was at 20 kilometers away with no communication. 

The answer is yes. I thought more than one time at what happen if I fall and I can share my experiences without trying to convic other people that my estimation is the only one. In cathedral, there is always people and a broken leg can not finish by the death of a person. In Malbaie, the closest route is at one hour from the cliff or on the other side of a river. If you hang on the air and you can't use your hand to get out of trouble...you are in problem. Safety take a different meaning.

it is hard to say to a nw climber learn your safety before climber hard...when some people try to minimize the importance of learning technique. Now to go to pinacle gully, we don't need to know about avalanches and snow pocket, we just have to wait that the level danger is low.   
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DLottmann on February 19, 2012, 08:29:52 pm
Have you ever seriously broken an arm or a leg while climbing?  Like multiple bones, foot going the other way broken.
The second, is not really in the cliff. I had a shoulder dislocation...

Now to go to pinacle gully, we don't need to know about avalanches and snow pocket, we just have to wait that the level danger is low.   

1) I have close friends who watched you dislocate your shoulder climbing at Cathedral. Not saying you did anything wrong, but wasn’t it pitch 1 of Recompense?

2) Yes, we do. Not knowing about avalanches means not knowing how to read the bulletin. Not knowing means we can’t recognize the “snow pocket”.

And let’s be honest, most climbers who drive 3+ hours to climb Pinnacle will still go up there is the danger is “Moderate”, and often higher. Truly understanding current conditions, trigger points, and safer travel techniques is good for any climber. Waiting till it is always “low danger” eliminates many reasonable climbing days.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: mechanicalchris on April 03, 2012, 11:11:19 am
How can you estimate if you're going to break your leg or not lol?

When I took that fall on White Horse it definitely effected my climbing. In a way it was a great experience, the whole system worked and I only bumped my knee but it shattered the facade, my hubris and newbie sense of confidence. Now as soon as I feel in over my head, my leg starts shaking and my climbing goes out the window.

My risk management now is to lead things I believe I have a 99% chance of completing while mitigating the other 1% with gear placements. As has been expressed to me by some pretty talented (older) climber friends, "you shouldn't lead ice if you think there's a chance you could fall." To which I say, "What about trad?" ... to which they say, "Basically the same rule applies." 

I'm not thinking about the specific anatomical injuries as that would further degrade my prospect for a successful lead. Of course, even this prudent approach proves inadequate most of the time. I get pissed off because there's a huge generation gap between good trad climbers and the next gen and the beta is abstract at best. Unlike most hobbies, it seems to resemble an upside down pyramid, with most of the knowledge and participants being decades older and better and fewer new entrants into trad.

Most of the route descriptions, beta, and tips comes from you accomplished guys who can't really remember what its like to be new. So then I show up with my girlfriend and a route will say something inviting like "Joe's Joe's First Ascent: great 5.4 beginners route follow the obvious crack". So then I'm thinking, "Ok Im on-siting 5.10 at the gym and 5.8 at Rumney, I know there's disparity between the ratings and I'm not great but 5.4? C'mon this has to be well below my ability, we have to have finally found a route that's challenging, safe, and fun."

So then I'm cruising and everything is working great and then all of a sudden the gear placements start to become non-existent and the moves get crimpy, the 5.4 feels more like a 5.8 and then my leg starts shaking, there's no obvious crack, wet moss everywhere, and its non-stop terror until I flop over the top in relief." It never fails too, I'll consult with one of my seasoned climber friends up there and get one of these...

"Ha, ha, you did [insert route name here] everyone knows that's a dangerous [choose one: runnout, old school, sketchy, chossy, sandbagged,] route."   

Said route was probably put up in the 1980's by some local young talented maniac climber with a death wish, crushing brews/smoking with his guy friends powered by enough hubris to topple a small army and themselves at the same time.

Someone needs to come out with a book called "Frickin Easy Climbs: New Hampshire Trad Climbs Novices Will Actually Find Fun And Safe"

Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: apbt1976 on April 03, 2012, 11:26:46 am
How can you estimate if you're going to break your leg or not lol?

When I took that fall on White Horse it definitely effected my climbing. In a way it was a great experience, the whole system worked and I only bumped my knee but it shattered the facade, my hubris and newbie sense of confidence. Now as soon as I feel in over my head, my leg starts shaking and my climbing goes out the window.

My risk management now is to lead things I believe I have a 99% chance of completing while mitigating the other 1% with gear placements. As has been expressed to me by some pretty talented (older) climber friends, "you shouldn't lead ice if you think there's a chance you could fall." To which I say, "What about trad?" ... to which they say, "Basically the same rule applies." 

I'm not thinking about the specific anatomical injuries as that would further degrade my prospect for a successful lead. Of course, even this prudent approach proves inadequate most of the time. I get pissed off because there's a huge generation gap between good trad climbers and the next gen and the beta is abstract at best. Unlike most hobbies, it seems to resemble an upside down pyramid, with most of the knowledge and participants being decades older and better and fewer new entrants into trad.

Most of the route descriptions, beta, and tips comes from you accomplished guys who can't really remember what its like to be new. So then I show up with my girlfriend and a route will say something inviting like "Joe's Joe's First Ascent: great 5.4 beginners route follow the obvious crack". So then I'm thinking, "Ok Im on-siting 5.10 at the gym and 5.8 at Rumney, I know there's disparity between the ratings and I'm not great but 5.4? C'mon this has to be well below my ability, we have to have finally found a route that's challenging, safe, and fun."

So then I'm cruising and everything is working great and then all of a sudden the gear placements start to become non-existent and the moves get crimpy, the 5.4 feels more like a 5.8 and then my leg starts shaking, there's no obvious crack, wet moss everywhere, and its non-stop terror until I flop over the top in relief." It never fails too, I'll consult with one of my seasoned climber friends up there and get one of these...

"Ha, ha, you did [insert route name here] everyone knows that's a dangerous [choose one: runnout, old school, sketchy, chossy, sandbagged,] route."   

Said route was probably put up in the 1980's by some local young talented maniac climber with a death wish, crushing brews/smoking with his guy friends powered by enough hubris to topple a small army and themselves at the same time.

Someone needs to come out with a book called "F&*Cking Easy Climbs: New Hampshire Trad Climbs Novices Will Actually Find Fun And Safe"

Ha ha..

Being new to climbing learning Trad is pretty much my sole reason for climbing. I also find myself pondering all the same questions at the moment. I have to remind myself to slow down "that it is the journey not the destination".

The aging 34 year old man in me is in quite a rush to be honest as i have some high aspirations while my body is still operating at 99.9%. I have a feeling some of the things i aspire towards a 45-60 year old body may have a hard time with!

Maybe not but i don't really wanna wait and find out the hard way!!
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: mechanicalchris on April 03, 2012, 12:38:09 pm

Ha ha..

Being new to climbing learning Trad is pretty much my sole reason for climbing. I also find myself pondering all the same questions at the moment. I have to remind myself to slow down "that it is the journey not the destination".

The aging 34 year old man in me is in quite a rush to be honest as i have some high aspirations while my body is still operating at 99.9%. I have a feeling some of the things i aspire towards a 45-60 year old body may have a hard time with!

Maybe not but i don't really wanna wait and find out the hard way!!

You know I was thinking about this thread and it dawned on me that Laura and I saw a kid snap his leg in half bouldering at metro rock a few weeks ago. I'd never seen anyone break their leg... and he was just bouldering a few feet up in a gym! With a squishy floor! Bouldering in a gym is probably safer than pogs. It just goes to show you that in all sports you can sustain injuries and I don't think you can predict "if" and "when" you're going to break bones.

BTW, the best climbers I know are over 50, 60, and 70 ... that's why I climb with them lol

For some reason they seem to share the same approach to climbing as us. Its our peers/younger that we sometimes have difficulty climbing with.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: apbt1976 on April 03, 2012, 02:35:09 pm

Ha ha..

Being new to climbing learning Trad is pretty much my sole reason for climbing. I also find myself pondering all the same questions at the moment. I have to remind myself to slow down "that it is the journey not the destination".

The aging 34 year old man in me is in quite a rush to be honest as i have some high aspirations while my body is still operating at 99.9%. I have a feeling some of the things i aspire towards a 45-60 year old body may have a hard time with!

Maybe not but i don't really wanna wait and find out the hard way!!

You know I was thinking about this thread and it dawned on me that Laura and I saw a kid snap his leg in half bouldering at metro rock a few weeks ago. I'd never seen anyone break their leg... and he was just bouldering a few feet up in a gym! With a squishy floor! Bouldering in a gym is probably safer than pogs. It just goes to show you that in all sports you can sustain injuries and I don't think you can predict "if" and "when" you're going to break bones.

BTW, the best climbers I know are over 50, 60, and 70 ... that's why I climb with them lol

For some reason they seem to share the same approach to climbing as us. Its our peers/younger that we sometimes have difficulty climbing with.

For some reason i have also gravitated towards people 10-20 years older than me all my life. When i was a aspiring pro cyclist and 25 it was 50+ masters guys i was able to learn the most from. Now at 34 and learning to climb i find the 50-65 age group being the ones i also am able to learn the most from and offer a mutual respect. Something that makes you feel safe climbing when someone had decades of experiences to fall back on. Plus i think in all that time they pick up a thing or two about how to effectively teach. Add to that a humble attitude as apposed to that young guy something to prove full of them self attitude and i am very happy with the older generation of climbers.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: sneoh on April 03, 2012, 02:40:27 pm
BTW, the best climbers I know are over 50, 60, and 70 ... that's why I climb with them lol
For some reason they seem to share the same approach to climbing as us. Its our peers/younger that we sometimes have difficulty climbing with.

I am in that age group.  Not sure about good at anything.  I can say the prevailing attitude I find among my peers is avoid getting injured as much as possible.  Body parts take so much longer to heal once one's age is north of 40 or 45.  Live to fight another day and being able to climb for as long as possible into the future become one's major consideration.  And, yeah, and have as much fun as possible while at it! :)
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: mechanicalchris on April 03, 2012, 03:11:14 pm
BTW, the best climbers I know are over 50, 60, and 70 ... that's why I climb with them lol
For some reason they seem to share the same approach to climbing as us. Its our peers/younger that we sometimes have difficulty climbing with.

I am in that age group.  Not sure about good at anything.  I can say the prevailing attitude I find among my peers is avoid getting injured as much as possible.  Body parts take so much longer to heal once one's age is north of 40 or 45.  Live to fight another day and being able to climb for as long as possible into the future become one's major consideration.  And, yeah, and have as much fun as possible while at it! :)

Well put and as it relates to Champoing's initial topic of risk assessment, I think the ones still climbing into the 40's, 50', 60's and beyond are who we can learn the most from about good risk assessment habits.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: apbt1976 on April 03, 2012, 04:25:21 pm
BTW, the best climbers I know are over 50, 60, and 70 ... that's why I climb with them lol
For some reason they seem to share the same approach to climbing as us. Its our peers/younger that we sometimes have difficulty climbing with.

I am in that age group.  Not sure about good at anything.  I can say the prevailing attitude I find among my peers is avoid getting injured as much as possible.  Body parts take so much longer to heal once one's age is north of 40 or 45.  Live to fight another day and being able to climb for as long as possible into the future become one's major consideration.  And, yeah, and have as much fun as possible while at it! :)

Well put and as it relates to Champoing's initial topic of risk assessment, I think the ones still climbing into the 40's, 50', 60's and beyond are who we can learn the most from about good risk assessment habits.

Again you summed that up very well in regard to "risk assessment habits".

That and having being good teachers as they have taught more than one person to climb really seems to go a long way.

Being 34 i am already starting to figure out the body suddenly has it's limitations. More than i want to finish some hard route/line i much prefer to be able to go for a run, bike ride the next day and continue on trying to get out as much as humanly possible. Being really good also sounds good but i go nuts sitting on me ass injured!!
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: strandman on April 03, 2012, 05:40:36 pm
Feeling good ? I wasn't doing to bad until south Co got a quick 22" dump of snow .... back is feeling it now.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: Jack_Dorsey on April 04, 2012, 05:14:16 pm
This is what I did! Well change bowling to running!

If you are worried about the risks in climbing take up bowling!!

Like many of you it's part of my makeup to analyze the risk of what I do and how it affects other things in my life that may be more important. At this moment my training for the Vermont City Marathon is far more important to me than climbing. Thinking about the risks I decided that I don't want to rock or ice climb until after the marathon.

I chuckled a bit about some of the age worry comments in this thread. In 24 days I'll turn 70. From my prospective I'm not old. It's been a great year. I'm happier than I've been in years.

On Monday I ran 10 miles and averaged a 8 1/2 minutes per mile and felt like I was flying. Thirty years ago I would have been 2 1/2 minutes a mile faster but it wouldn't have felt any better. I was happy with my "speed workout" because it's what I can do now.

Jack
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: Admin Al on April 04, 2012, 05:48:42 pm
If you are worried about the risks in climbing take up bowling!!

right on Jack... I totally agree!
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: slink on April 04, 2012, 06:06:10 pm
Do not let Jack fool you.He is a hiking machine.We have done back country stuff together and he is a great partner to climb with.When is this marathon Jack? I should be healed up and ready to get back on the rock by then'.
 Keep on training and you will be young forever ;D
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: tradchick on April 04, 2012, 06:37:32 pm
Jack, you are an inspiration.....and hard to keep up with on the trail.  We'll need to weigh you down with both ropes.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: punxnotdead on April 04, 2012, 09:35:41 pm
Although I miss climbing with Jack right now. I am psyched for his marathon.

Of course, there are many times when I have pulled on a suspect ice axe or made some low percentage slab moves. But the risk analysis machine is always running .

Climb on, climb smart and try to keep up with Jack on a bushwhack!

Bill Keiler
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: sneoh on April 04, 2012, 11:54:14 pm
Risking sounding petty or coming across like a jackass, Al, there is a difference between being worried about the risks in climbing and, as Bill so adeptly puts it, making sure "the risk analysis machine is always running".
Case in point - I was bouldering the other night absent-mindedly and taking things way too casually, slapped for a sloper but could not control it and came off.  I had no idea where I was going to land.  Bad mistake - landed on the edge of the pad and rolled my ankle. That was it for the night for me; had to limp home licking my wound and feeling like a total fool.  Lucky for me, my ankle was back to normal in 2 days but it could have been uglier.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: PG on April 05, 2012, 07:09:28 am
Risk assesment or listening to your inner voice. One time I didn't listen and it almost killed me. Another time I listened and it saved my life. And yet another time I listened and it transformed my life. I guess you have to just get out there and have fun but when that voice speaks stop and listen.

Pete
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: Admin Al on April 05, 2012, 08:14:02 am
I am always listening to that inner voice and I never have a problem backing off something... I know I've hiked up to Hunting half a dozen times in the past 20 years, looked around and said "well it was a nice day for a hike".
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: strandman on April 05, 2012, 11:46:45 am
Sounds like you guys are hearing a lot of voices   ;)
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: JBro on April 05, 2012, 12:03:39 pm
I only hear one voice. It keeps saying "one more beer isn't gonna hurt anything..."

Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on April 05, 2012, 01:30:21 pm
How can you estimate if you're going to break your leg or not lol?

When I took that fall on White Horse it definitely effected my climbing. In a way it was a great experience, the whole system worked and I only bumped my knee but it shattered the facade, my hubris and newbie sense of confidence. Now as soon as I feel in over my head, my leg starts shaking and my climbing goes out the window.

I feel some good negative karma point here :)

It is my question mostly. I was with my climbing boot, I was going down a stairs, the soil at the bottom was frozen ice. As soon as I put the feet on the ice. Zoup!!! I was falling on my new operate carpal tunnel hands without hiting my head on the last stair.

Now I am scare and I don't want to go down a stair because they must have ice.

if there is no ice, I was not afraid and I can go down the stair. The first time I fall and after...I was more subtil. I stop at the end of the stair and place my feet in a way that the weight of my body was directly on my feet. so, I can not fall to the right, nor to the left or backward. As I no the level of risk, I still can down climb the stairs, but i have more experience.

the question is how to get that experiences before a serious accident? i often say, and I still think like that, that bailing hurt more than a broken leg in certain conditions. A leg will take one or two month to health, but you will remember all your life that you mist your goal because you didn't have the ball. 
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DWT on April 05, 2012, 06:32:18 pm
Quote from: champoing link=topic=6760.msg48962#msg48962 date=1333647021
[/quote

I feel some good negative karma point here :)
We should get you a tee shirt.  "I got 50 smites on NEClimbs and all I got was this crappy tee shirt"  Extra Small to match your Canadian swimwear.

Zoup!! 
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: strandman on April 05, 2012, 10:42:37 pm
The great line o fall time   --If keith richards is  alive,I'll have another drink
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: lucky luke on April 06, 2012, 05:35:16 am
The great line o fall time   --If keith richards is  alive,I'll have another drink

sorry for your friends.
It is the two extreme: doing nothing or going to our death. It is all about climbing: the real chalenge. I am always scare to died and I never want to stay home. where is the line? for some people, the bottom line will be no risk at all. for some other it will suicide. But for a lot of people, some thing in a middle wil be good. this is climbing. I think that to know the level of risk, we must have a knowledge of all aspect of climbing and train to know if we have the knowledge. If I want todo vertigo, I know that there is a finger crack in the third pitch and an off with. If I train in a gym to do crimp....not sure if it is not dagnerous to try it.

Bad experience is good because it is where you learn and also to prepare the climb. I like if the guide going outside teach how to look at a cliff and calculate where you are going to place the belay and try to find those places as they climb. Bad experiences at little doses. As you follow and experience climber, yo can be better than him, but he can bring you on problem that will save your life after.

Or you can folllow a set of bolt.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: DGoguen on April 06, 2012, 07:44:07 am
The great line o fall time   --If keith richards is  alive,I'll have another drink

Keith's recent autobiography is a pretty good read. Also, podcast Terry Gross fresh air interview. Interesting guy.
Sorry, off topic, I lost focus. Whats the difference between Sport and Trad again?
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: OldEric on April 06, 2012, 12:22:52 pm
Keith is trad, Mick is sport
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: sneoh on April 06, 2012, 03:56:54 pm
Keith is trad, Mick is sport
+1.  Good one, Eric.
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: Jeff on April 06, 2012, 05:44:49 pm
I don't think Keith practices the body X position!  :)
Title: Re: level of risk?
Post by: Admin Al on April 06, 2012, 09:49:06 pm
I enjoyed the Keith autobiography + 1