Is the phrase "The leader must never fall!" out of date?

Anonymous wrote:

More food for thought (I've yet to read these; nighty night time.)

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/106469891/the-leader-must-not-fall-are-you-seriously

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/2602809/The-leader-never-falls

@Bill Czajkowski I don't know. The SuperTopo thread says Geoffrey Winthrop Young mentions it in one of his books though.

I didn't read the supertopo, just the MP one. There's a lot of thoughtful stuff in there.

Thinking about it more? My answer? "It depends".

Like so much in climbing, the "never" is too absolute for leading in general. "Leading" is too narrow for considering falls.

Falls, and their consequences are a constant that must be considered, starting when you are thinking where to go climbing. 

Our last climbing trip was backcountry, very backcountry, yet semi developed climbing with some bolts. For my sake, we went to a spot where there were "easy" 5.6-7 routes. 

Unfortunately, the climbing is easy, but much of it was very committing, and on rock with both rope snagging and cutting potential. No fall zones, and a lot of very careful positioning of the rope. Even trying to get my partners final rappel worked out took both of us manoevering the rope and quite a while.

Best, OLH

Peter Beal wrote:

Nate as in a lot of things, a happy medium can be found. A steep well protected route can be fallen off of without too much danger if the risks are competently managed. Just around the corner from Regent Street is Edge Lane an arete with a similar technical grade but with an unprotected balancy crux at 50 feet. Falling from that is probably fatal. If you read the UKC discussion, even the leader in the video acknowledges he messed up. I did Regent Street ages ago and it is pretty safe crack climbing. I could never summon the courage to do Edge Lane even though I went up to the commitment zone and climbed back down many times. To me that's the difference. Generally climbers are perceptive enough to recognize the difference between actual and perceived danger and know when not to fall.

Bill, the expression comes from the early days of mountaineering on hemp ropes and no protection, where a fall would take everyone else on the rope along with the leader, unless of course the rope broke! English mountaineers in the 19th and early 20th century were raised in a very "sporting" atmosphere where it was said that "A climber who would use a piton would shoot a fox!"

Nylon ropes along with easily placed or fixed protection radically changed that and the sport jumped ahead as a result.

So the answer to the question is the saying is moot. 

Now a more fitting line is 'if you're not falling you're not trying hard enough'

The gear  has out paced the need, & the fear of gear failure is over exaggerated . Really, once the Swami and the Whillians went the way of the Dodo, the ability to gain knowledge by letting go became the way to go after progressively harder climbs.

True, but I think Tradiban's point is that accepting falling gives one the option to fail...it's an "out."  If one climbs under the phrase and commits to finishing a route, the fear can actually be a motivator.  Kind of like how you'll never run faster than when you're being chased by a bear...

Ted Pinson wrote:

True, but I think Tradiban's point is that accepting falling gives one the option to fail...it's an "out."  If one climbs under the phrase and commits to finishing a route, the fear can actually be a motivator.  Kind of like how you'll never run faster than when you're being chased by a bear...

This is called dying... fastest human sprinter ever recorded was just under 28 mph and a bear can run at 25 mph (up to 40mph sprinting) so the average human would die if a bear wanted to run them down.

Lol not the point. :p

ViperScale wrote:

This is called dying... fastest human sprinter ever recorded was just under 28 mph and a bear can run at 25 mph (up to 40mph sprinting) so the average human would die if a bear wanted to run them down.

Not true, and it highlights my point. A human is almost always smarter than the bear and wouldn't need to outrun the bear, they would only need to outsmart the bear. Be the human, Viper, not the bear.

Well, in truth you really only need to outrun your partner...

I don't see why climbers need a slogan to tell them how to climb.

But if you insist, how about this instead-

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Aleister Crowley

It is an historic term. However, in trad there are still many routes with "No Fall" zones. Sport routes are different by design. 

Yes, ropes and pro are better now, but there are a lot of trad routes where a fall can have serious consequences. 

For example, even though the bolts at Stone Mountain, NC are solid I don't know of anyone who feels okay about a lead fall there.

Yes it is. Next thread.

Jaren Watson wrote:

I'm somewhat surprised this is even a point of deliberation. Because you know what excellent climbers do? They fall. Repeatedly. Over and over and over.

You know what a significant portion of the rest of us do? Not fall.

You not getting it. They all because they have to, not because it's what they need to do to advance their skills. To get stronger people sport climb or sprad.

What is still true about most trad climbing is that the leader has to be able to deal with terrain in which they must not fall.  Many, perhaps even most, trad climbs have sections in which a leader fall would be catastrophic.  Most of the time, these sections are much easier than the hard parts of the route, but not always.  So while "the leader must never fall" is no longer universally true, it is still situationally true, and the occurrence of situations with deadly consequences is not rare.

Jaren Watson wrote:

I'm somewhat surprised this is even a point of deliberation. Because you know what excellent climbers do? They fall. Repeatedly. Over and over and over.

You know what a significant portion of the rest of us do? Not fall.

The best seldom fall. You're confusing "sport" "gym" and "top rope" with climbing. If you practice not falling, and climb as if falling is not an option your ability to climb improves. Lead everything and never weight the rope. No one falls their way up big walls or long multi pitch routes. You can't free solo if you fall all the time either. Long run outs are nothing with this attitude and a cool head. You don't learn anything from falling.

 To answer the OPs question, it probably is outdated, along with a lot of other things that once made climbing great. Overdependance on gear has created a "falling is safe" attitude that stunts climbers growth.

John Barritt wrote:

 Overdependance on gear has created a "falling is safe" attitude that stunts climbers growth.

Quite the opposite actually. By willing to push their limits, climbers learn what they are truly capable of. 

John Barritt wrote:

The best seldom fall. 

Would you please list these "best" climbers that seldom fall.

Because I don't think they exist.

Jaren Watson wrote:

I think I'm getting it. In order for the phrase to be true, one must wrest it into submission so that it's true under certain circumstances.

Which is to say, this is semantic quibbling that may be interesting but if you're not being disingenuous, you have to admit that either the phrase is not actually true or you don't actually understand the meaning of words.

It's the meaning behind the words that I'm interested in.

Jaren Watson wrote:

Don't learn anything from falling?

Try it sometime and practice introspection. You may surprise yourself.

What did you learn from falling?

John Barritt wrote:

The best seldom fall. You're confusing "sport" "gym" and "top rope" with climbing. If you practice not falling, and climb as if falling is not an option your ability to climb improves. Lead everything and never weight the rope. No one falls their way up big walls or long multi pitch routes. You can't free solo if you fall all the time either. Long run outs are nothing with this attitude and a cool head. You don't learn anything from falling.

 To answer the OPs question, it probably is outdated, along with a lot of other things that once made climbing great. Overdependance on gear has created a "falling is safe" attitude that stunts climbers growth.

This guy..... Define ability to climb? Define how sport climbing is not climbing? Reconcile that strength translates to the capacity for executing harder and harder movement with correct/good technique, and that to overload your system to promote adaptations requires high intensity, which typically for climbing would involve falling? And I think TC fell his way up multiple big walls (even before the Dawn Wall), which then allowed him to attempt and succeed at freeing the Dawn Wall (but thats not climbing right since the cruxes were bolted?)

Jaren Watson wrote:

The limiting factor that made me fall, whether it was physical or mental. The security or insecurity of the placement. How to regroup after falling and trying again. How to fall without hurting myself. How to climb the section in better fashion.

There may be more.

In fact, there is a long and robust thread currently on this very topic--Falling on gear, lessons learned. Many climbers of varying skills and experience have apparently learned quite a bit from falling.

Oh. I learned all that without falling...alot safer that way.

Jaren Watson wrote:

How very meta of you. But since we don't all exist on a nebulous postmodern plane, it may be worth using words that actually reflect what you mean.

Umm...so you have to be on a "nebulous postmodern plane" to see meaning behind words?! Ever read a book, bro?