Why not make a "soft catch" mode for Grigris for potential factor 2 falls?

rgoldwrote: I think the whole debate has assumed semi-religious overtones with neither side wanting to give ground.  

You're probably right about that. It's worth noting that this is a thread that started with someone asking about creating a device to "soft catch" on Factor 2 falls. Which, by definition, only really happen in multipitch scenarios. Given that a belayer MUST be anchored for there to even be a fall factor 2 happening the whole debate about REAL soft catches (which, again, are a great trick in overhanging, run-out situations to keep your climber from hitting the wall when they swing back) was sort of a non-sequitor. It's pretty hard to jump toward your falling climber when on a hanging belay at a multipitch anchor.

The most bizarre soft catch dogma I've seen, though, was by certain testers at my gym when giving lead belay tests. A person I know was failed on her lead belay test not because she failed to stop her climber or did anything wrong but because she didn't "jump" and give her climber a "soft-catch" on a juggy 5.10a climb that was dead vertical with lots of stuff sticking out of it. In other words, not actually a place where a soft-catch is ideal. But this poor person is now likely to go through her entire climbing career thinking that you must ALWAYS jump when catching a fall or you're doing something wrong. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

I'm genuinely curious. Do you mean your climber bounced away from the wall and then you pulled her back in? If she was .5m. or 1.5 feet, roughly, above a bolt, I'm not sure a traditional "soft catch" would have made much difference. Those falls just above a bolt are often jarring. 

Her fall pretty much described something between a semicircle and a "J", where she popped off, fell backwards then down.  She yelled and I braced for the fall.  As soon as her weight came onto the rope she accelerated and swung hard into the rock just a couple of feet below the bolt.  I didn't move.  I honestly don't recall what device I was using to belay.

Philip Magistrowrote:

Her fall pretty much described something between a semicircle and a "J", where she popped off, fell backwards then down.  She yelled and I braced for the fall.  As soon as her weight came onto the rope she accelerated and swung hard into the rock just a couple of feet below the bolt.  I didn't move.  I honestly don't recall what device I was using to belay.

Well, you caught her and she was okay, so good work in the end. Thanks for answering. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

I'm genuinely curious. Do you mean your climber bounced away from the wall and then you pulled her back in? If she was .5m. or 1.5 feet, roughly, above a bolt, I'm not sure a traditional "soft catch" would have made much difference. Those falls just above a bolt are often jarring. 

But that's the point that soft-catch advocates are trying to make: they don't have to be jarring, because you can give a soft catch! Falls just above a bolt or gear are one of the places I'm more intentional about it for exactly that reason, and such falls can be common if on well-protected routes at one's limit. I'm thinking of vertical or near-vertical walls here. It should go without saying, but probably won't on this thread, so to disclaim: no, I won't do this if there's a ledge, protrusion, or the ground that the climber could hit.  

Is it always perfect? No, but it usually works well and is better than the alternative, particularly if the alternative is locking down hard.

Also, to address another topic of debate: I am definitely not versed in the physics, but in my experience falling and catching falls it does seem that there's initial outward motion. This seems particularly true if you pop off a small hold which is often the cause of an unexpected fall on a vertical wall. Rarely if ever (again, I'm thinking of vertical or near-vertical walls as I generally try to avoid falling on slabs) do I find myself or my partner scraping down the wall.

I too aspire to be technically correct, while completely missing the point and alienating everyone around me.

So now we’ve gone from “a mysterious outward force nobody can explain” to “When falling we do often tilt backwards and we often kick off a bit...Pushing out is very common, almost everybody does it, despite those who spray otherwise”.

i guess somebody explained it.

With all these hypothetical situations, people are getting caught up on equipment as a substitute/crutch for skills. That goes for both the leader and belayer. Does anybody plan before they leave the ground??? If climbing at your limit, you have an inkling of where the crux is and you’re within sight of your belayer, do you talk about distance to the last piece of pro? how you might fall, length of the fall, risk of hitting a feature, ground fall, pendulums, the amount of slack in the system and the type of catch, etc??? All this jibber jabber makes me think not. If people expect a piece of equipment to make a fall “better” or “softer” or “safer”, they’re fooling themselves and their partner. Sometimes a fall is a surprise... that’s just climbing.

Dave K wrote:

You are talking about comfort but the initial criticism that started this debate "OMG never let that person belay you!" was talking about safety.

There is a wide misunderstanding in climbing that a soft catch is always necessary for safety. Last summer I was on a popular five easy route in Mammoth (Crystal Crag) an I overheard a guy describing how to give a soft catch to a new climber. This was on the second pitch of a trad route where the terrain above was blocky and no harder than 5.6. There is zero reason to incorporate the concept of a soft catch on a climb like that. Don't even talk about it. The same with slab climbing, which is always less than vertical (even the 5.13 slabs on El Cap aren't 90 degrees.)

When falling we do often tilt backwards and we often kick off a bit, especially when we fall on purpose. Pushing out is very common, almost everybody does it, despite those who spray otherwise. New climbers who take their first practice lead usually push off pretty hard which means their initial impressions of falling often have an unnecessary pendulum. The reason we don't scrape the wall on the way down is because our hips aren't hugging the wall when we fall and our hips are what pushes outward most when we start falling. The center of gravity of the human body is at our belly buttons and the combination of tilting back and pushing off will put our waist a few of feet from the wall on vertical terrain in a "typical" fall.


The falls in this video are on nearly vertical terrain. They are intentional falls and the climber deliberately leans back and pushes off, which is what most people do when the fall is deliberate. He does spike the wall a bit and since no one has measured the impact force we can argue forever about whether it is hard enough to cause injury. It's not clear if the belayer attempts to give a soft catch since the editing of the video probably doesn't align the scenes of climber and belayer perfectly.  But there is no mention of a soft catch being necessary and I don't see any ankles breaking. An attempt at a soft catch would definitely increase the chances of him decking from that height.

Would a soft catch be a good idea on these falls? Who knows? They might be more comfortable for the climber but there's little compelling evidence that they would be more safe. But I can say for sure that a poorly-executed soft catch would be less safe.

We must just have different ideas of what a soft catch is. That video is focused on what the climber should do, rather than the belayer, but most of the catches looked reasonably soft to me, particularly given the nearness of the ground--on most of them the belayer went with the force of the fall and was pulled up in the air. (There's also a reference at one point to communicating with your belayer if possible so you can receive a softer catch.)

Also, I would never say that a soft catch is always necessary for safety, and I don't think anyone I climb with would say that. Not that I disbelieve your story, I'm just not sure how widespread that thinking is. Perhaps it's more common that I realize, but I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that it's always necessary, though I may have missed it. 

Man it just gets better! Now you’ve moved from a vertical wall to a slab! Keep digging.

Charles Vernonwrote:

But that's the point that soft-catch advocates are trying to make: they don't have to be jarring, because you can give a soft catch! Falls just above a bolt or gear are one of the places I'm more intentional about it for exactly that reason, and such falls can be common if on well-protected routes at one's limit. 

Nobody is arguing with that, Charles. The belayer COULD have given his climber a softer catch if he had the timing and room to do so. That is true. But he didn't and she wasn't "spiked" or injured or anything. The actual proper "soft catch" technique isn't about comfort or because climbers are particularly fragile people. It's a deliberate technique to keep a climber on overhanging terrain from penduluming back into the rock, often headfirst, and not getting injured as a result. 

I’ve got 100’s-1000’s of falls taken and caught over 30ish years of climbing. And being pretty light, often with a heavier belayer, the difference in whether the belayer moves or not is incredibly obvious, even on vertical walls.

This thread is great. It highlights the Dunning–Kruger effect very well. There are even people stating that they don't believe their lack of experience should factor in because the physics are simple to understand.

As a climber that climbs 3 to 4 days a week on average for well over a decade, I have a bit of experience. As an aerospace engineer, I have a decent background in physics. I can tell you a good belay is complicated and requires skills and attentiveness.

As my advanced dynamics teacher said, "Higher education is just a series of decreasing lies, the higher you go the less we lie to you and the harder the math gets."  

The life long physics teacher was the only one in these 6 pages to say maybe he doesn't know everything.  The arrogance of the inexperienced is always amazing. 

more and more climbers are applying it in situations where it does more harm than good

Cordelettes. Quads. Self-rescue. Fads, all of them. Not that there is anything wrong with fads.

Too often in learning curves, when we learn one way to do a thing, it becomes The Way. Its not a function of climbing or climbers per se, its a function of humans and learning.

I'd say don't fall in love with your own ways. Be willing to reexamine them. BE WILLING TO BE WRONG.

The master will know many ways to accomplish a task and will be able to decide on the fly which way is the best way for the job at hand.

At any rate I have found it useful over the years to read these kinds of threads to help keep current and to help keep my mind open to new possibilities, what ever the topic.

Dave K wrote:

Man it just gets better! Now you’ve moved from unsafe to obvious! Keep digging. 

I'm not saying you can't feel the difference. I'm saying it is a overstated safety concern and more and more climbers are applying it in situations where it does more harm than good.

There's no point in debating this anymore. This is no different than going to a Trump rally and convincing people to consider social distancing. You're more interested in owning the other side than coming to an understanding.

Find one post of mine where I said not giving a soft catch was inherently unsafe. Of course it’s situational, nobody is arguing that. When conditions don’t warrant softening the catch...duh, don’t do it. But when they do, yes it decreases the chance injury.

And by “obvious” I mean specifically more likely to sprain/break an ankle.

You’ve completely shifted the goalposts from denying that it is even a factor because your physics model can’t support it, to now saying that maybe it’s real and just overstated. 

Dave K wrote:

Yeah, experience. I know people that are convinced that vaccines cause autism because of their very personal experience of raising a child with autism. I mean, they've walked the walk...

You've got experience and credentials. Then can you give us a quick write up explaining the correct and appropriate situations for a soft catch? I'm particularly interested in why it would ever be necessary on slab, since no one wants to go there.

Like I said pages ago: spray vs. science. We got your spray, let's hear your science.

It is apparent that you are missing the point of my post. You want this to be a simple thing someone can teach you in a 1000 or less character post. Only the truly inexperienced with a rudimentary understanding of physics think in this way. This is why you have the two camps talking past each other. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

Nobody is arguing with that, Charles. The belayer COULD have given his climber a softer catch if he had the timing and room to do so. That is true. But he didn't and she wasn't "spiked" or injured or anything. The actual proper "soft catch" technique isn't about comfort or because climbers are particularly fragile people. It's a deliberate technique to keep a climber on overhanging terrain from penduluming back into the rock, often headfirst, and not getting injured as a result. 

I'm not talking about the fall Philip described specifically, I'm taking issue with your suggestion that falls just above a bolt are often jarring. I don't think they need to be and in my experience usually aren't. I don't agree that there isn't sufficient timing and room to give a soft catch in such situations, or that soft catches are limited to overhanging terrain. However, as I said to Dave, it may be that we have different ideas of what a soft catch is. Perhaps we agree more than we realize. That being said, I just don't think these short falls usually need to be jarring at all, which makes me wonder. 

To the point about injury, a "jarring" fall of the type we're discussing can occasionally be injurious (mainly I've heard of back tweaks and bruises), but for me the more important aspect of a soft catch on a vertical wall is that, practically speaking, I feel more comfortable pushing my limits if I know I can take falls without slamming into the rock all the time.

We have crossed into that argument zone where it is now about who is saying the same thing better...

The topic was FF2 falls. Help me understand the soft catch process for FF2, please? Slab, vert or overhanging, I don't care. Explain for me how to soft catch an FF2 with, for example, a grigri.

Thank you!

Dave K wrote:

Jesus, you’re dense, “inherently” would be ignoring all other factors, like ledges and obstacles. You know very well nobody is advocating softening the catch even if it would add to the risk of hitting an obstacle. If those factors/obstacles don’t exist then, yes, I’m saying unequivocally, softening the catch will result in fewer injuries on vertical to overhanging terrain. I’m making no statement as to whether this holds true for slabs.

99 out of 100 times I hear someone say this doesn’t matter, it’s because they don’t fall very often, or they’re heavier than average and are typically getting soft catches whether they want/know it or not.