Incorrect accident analysis ANA Boulder Canyon pg 49-50

Did Nick Goldsmith bolt a crack recently?  This seems like too much butt-hurt to be coming out of a vacuum.  It definitely adds a new dimension to the sport vs. trad arguments.  "Just don't clip the bolts" --> "no, can't do that, that's letting my ego influence my decision making!"

Thanks, Woodson, for that video.  Petit is a true master.  Stunning.

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

 ANM 2021 page 49-50 Boulder Canyon Ground fall inadequate protection.

Read this last week and it bugged me so here goes.  Professional climber Molly Mitchel tried to climb Crank It 5.13 c/d Sport on gear instead of using the Bolts. While it has been climbed on gear it is still a Sport Climb and previously another professional climber Brad Gobright broke his back and ankle attempting this.  Molly fell, ripped her gear and broke her back.  The editors did not offer their analysis but simply printed her take.  Molly focused on the why and how that her micro gear ripped.  We had a similar discussion on here recently.  Molly did offer that in retrospect she should have clipped the bolt and bailed on that attempt. She did not however address or face up to the obvious.  It's a SPORT CLIMB. Clip the bolts and move on. There is only one reason for climbing a sport climb on gear and that reason is Ego. The need to prove that you are better than whomever stooped so low as to bolt this crack.  In this case the folks who bolted this line made the right call and were much smarter than the pro climbers who broke their backs trying to prove them wrong. 

Accident report should have read.

Fall on rock, Ground fall, skipped clips.  Letting ego influence decisions.  

The root of the accident, if squinting enough, may be ego but the cause is ripped gear. The report is accurate according to its mission, looking deeper for judgement is your choice.

How is your post anything less Mr pomfret? Keep it to yourself if it really puts your socks in a ruffle, unless you really need anybody else to hedge your bleating. You dunce 

I am in favor of this new Accidents analysis approach. Seeing as climbing is almost never strictly necessary, the root of all climbing injuries/deaths must be down to ego. Or maybe, "too much time on their hands." Better yet, "a mortal individual's doomed search for meaning in an uncaring physical world." 

Some might say these analyses are less useful. But ya gotta admit, they're just so much edgier. 

Seeing as climbing is almost never strictly necessary, the root of all climbing injuries/deaths must be down to ego.

The point is unassailable!

woah lol

Climbing itself is driven by ego per your own definition Nick. You don't have to climb any rocks, but ya do.

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

 the tard climber 

There's projecting, and then there's projecting

When life gives you melons...

The protection is not inadequate. It's a bolted sport climb.  The choice to not clip the bolts is the root cause of the accident not the failure of the trad gear.  Jan, Climbing a sport climb without clipping any of the bolts is not just pushing yourself. It is usually  making a statement against the bolts. Its a political  act not just a climbing act. Had this been a soloing accident I would have thought that she was just pushing too hard.  

When you skip a clip because you are pumped and you are making a calculated decision that by skipping the clip you might get the redpoint that is pushing yourself.  When you skip clips because you think that they are not necessary and that the moves should be protected with trad gear that is not just pushing yourself. That's politics.

Cronwrote:

I remember from reading the report that Molly said there was video of the fall and that she planned on posting it. Does anyone know if that ever happened?

It's 2021; there is a video.

Correction to the 'Incorrect accident analysis ANA Boulder Canyon pg 49-50' thread on MP, page 1 post 1.  Read it this morning and it bugged me so here goes:

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

Read this last week and it bugged me so here goes.  Professional climber Molly Mitchel tried to climb Crank It 5.13 c/d Sport on gear instead of using the Bolts. While it has been climbed on gear it is still a Sport Climb and previously another professional climber Brad Gobright broke his back and ankle attempting this.  Molly fell, ripped her gear and broke her back.  The editors did not offer their analysis but simply printed her take.  Molly focused on the why and how that her micro gear ripped.  We had a similar discussion on here recently.  Molly did offer that in retrospect she should have clipped the bolt and bailed on that attempt. She did not however address or face up to the obvious.  It's a SPORT CLIMB. Clip the bolts and move on. There is only one reason for climbing a sport climb on gear and that reason is Ego. The need to prove that you are better than whomever stooped so low as to bolt this crack.  In this case the folks who bolted this line made the right call and were much smarter than the pro climbers who broke their backs trying to prove them wrong. 

Accident report should have read.

Fall on rock, Ground fall, skipped clips.  Letting ego influence decisions.  

Post should have read:

Too much free time, needs more hobbies, for some weird reason needs to take a jab at someone they never met who could climb circles around them.

Dan COwrote:

Correction to the 'Incorrect accident analysis ANA Boulder Canyon pg 49-50' thread on MP, page 1 post 1.  Read it this morning and it bugged me so here goes:

Post should have read:

Too much free time, needs more hobbies, for some weird reason needs to take a jab at someone they never met who could climb circles around them.

lol.

At this point it’s apparent that he is either very dedicated to his troll post or fundamentally misunderstands climbing.

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

The protection is not inadequate. It's a bolted sport climb. 

Nah. Because even an X route can be climbed with adequate protection - just use the anchor at the top to deploy a top rope. Now, semantics aside, I’d get my undies in a wad if someone wanted the X label taken off because they top roped the X bit. Same if someone were now trying to label a well bolted route as X because someone else decked while attempting to lead without bolts.

Thar be the true labeling heretics.  ;)

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

The protection is not inadequate. It's a bolted sport climb.  The choice to not clip the bolts is the root cause of the accident not the failure of the trad gear.  Jan, Climbing a sport climb without clipping any of the bolts is not just pushing yourself. It is usually  making a statement against the bolts. Its a political  act not just a climbing act. Had this been a soloing accident I would have thought that she was just pushing too hard.  

When you skip a clip because you are pumped and you are making a calculated decision that by skipping the clip you might get the redpoint that is pushing yourself.  When you skip clips because you think that they are not necessary and that the moves should be protected with trad gear that is not just pushing yourself. That's politics.

Why so judgmental? She chose to climb it in a certain style. You're the only one trying to make it about politics or whatever. "Inadequate protection" isn't a comment on the route, it is a comment on the accident. It doesn't matter how good the protection could be, she placed inadequate protection to catch her fall and that is why she decked. If someone decked because they placed tipped out cams in a perfect hand crack it would say the same thing.

Why did Sonny Trotter Climb Monkey Face using gear? It was certainly to prove that it could/should have been done that way in the first place and to cast shade on the Euro that first climbed it(JB Tribout???) or first bolted it Alan Watts.

I don't know Molly, but I never got the impression that her, or Brad, or anyone else wanted to climb this line on gear to make any kind of statement or throw any shade. It just seems like an arbitrary challenge, a way to push themselves. Essentially the same motivation that we all have when we climb anything other than a warm up.

I agree that this thread feels weird, rude, and ironically, like an ego driven attempt to make a statement.

Edit: OR a successful troll. Third page in less than 24 hours. 10/10.

Yukon Corneliuswrote:

Edit: OR a successful troll. Third page in less than 24 hours. 10/10.

Three pages in three hours is a better standard. 

It would be better if Nick genuinely held this opinion versus using someone’s accident as fodder for trolling. Both are shitty, but the latter is significantly shittier.

Marc Hwrote:

It would be better if Nick genuinely held this opinion versus using someone’s accident as fodder for trolling. Both are shitty, but the latter is significantly shittier.

Would it?