Incorrect accident analysis ANA Boulder Canyon pg 49-50

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

What directly happened is that the leader   made a decision to not clip existing bolts and to instead rely on suspect trad gear that has a history of failing in that location with serious injury resulting.   The leader then fell on said suspect gear which failed resulting in serious injury.

for sure keep making your point you’re so close to winning 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

What directly happened is that the leader   made a decision to not clip existing bolts and to instead rely on suspect trad gear that has a history of failing in that location with serious injury resulting.   The leader then fell on said suspect gear which failed resulting in serious injury.

So... inadequate protection? I mean, we're all glad you're backing off the mind-reading claims you made earlier. But getting your dander up because folks called you names doesn't make this new take valid. Only slightly less silly than the original. 

A trad climb was being attempted in the same physical space as a series of bolts, and it didn't work because the protection proved to be inadequate. Knowing that such a thing is a possibility is useful to any climber. Pretending to know the climber's motivations or whether they "should" make such a attempt is navel gazing. I'm sorry people said mean things to you and it hurt your feelings; but further navel gazing won't fix that problem.

J W wrote:

True

+1

Ease up, guys.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

 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. 

Not true.

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

 leading sport climbs on gear is often about being a dick and simply trying to throw shade on the bolters.

Also not true.

Nick came out guns a blazin' with his hot takes. He deservedly(imho) got push back from the community. Instead of taking the time to reflect on what people said, he decided to play the "woe is me card" that everyone thinks he's a shitty person(I don't think Nick is a shitty person, just off base on his view of this incident. I would go climbing with him). He then came back and doubled and tripled down on his position.  A lot of the fallout has been self inflicted. Like a lot of things in life and on MP, this will blow over and Nick will be fine. Hopefully some lessons will be learned.

Do folks continuing to pile on also deserve pushback from the community?  Or is pushback only reserved for the dark horse?

Self-righteousness leads nowhere good.

If a leader places pro, falls and the pro fails resulting in serious injury that leader suffered a serious failure in judgement as well. 

And ego drove that lack of judgement, make no mistake. The OP's point is unassailable as well.

I feel that if the  leader  deliberately  passes  on available  pro to prove a point,  in this  case that the climb can be  done without  bolts  that the  failure  in judgment is  more  egregious.  

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

I feel that if the  leader  deliberately  passes  on available  pro to prove a point,  in this  case that the climb can be  done without  bolts  that the  failure  in judgment is  more  egregious.  

Can you prove that Molly was trying to prove a point? Maybe she was just looking for a better challenge.

Some of you have pretty powerful stuff here. I don't have a window into anyone else's mind, but apparently, you guys do. THAT"S SOME POWERFUL STUFF!

Bill W wrote:

Can you prove that Molly was trying to prove a point? Maybe she was just looking for a better challenge.

It’s kind of a catch all idiom where what other people think is primary.

“If you prove a point, you show other people that you know something or can do something, although your action may have no other purpose.”

Collins Dictionary

Am likewise wondering whether Nick thinks there could be other reasons that people climb.  And whether Nick has ever met Molly.  

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

I feel that if the  leader  deliberately  passes  on available  pro to prove a point,  in this  case that the climb can be  done without  bolts  that the  failure  in judgment is  more  egregious.  

Have you never lead something instead of toproping it for the challenge? If you fell and hurt yourself, should you be criticized for not using the safer available pro? 

Captain Ahab wrote:

Have you never lead something instead of toproping it for the challenge? If you fell and hurt yourself, should you be criticized for not using the safer available pro? 

And also when someone falls soloing its ego that made them splat right?

And also when someone falls soloing its ego that made them splat right?

Yes, absolutely. I don't know why this is even a discussion. Ego drives everything we do, including me typing this post.

It's a  sport  climb.  Climbing  it without the  bolts  is all about  proving  a point.  If there were  no  bolts  and  it  was  just a n rx trad climb  there  would  be  no  obvious protection to  dismiss.  You would be  climbing with  every  available  piece of  protection. Your  only other  choice  would  be to  not  attempt  the  climb.   Climbing  a sport  climb  and  deliberately  not  clipping the  bolts  is a deliberate  act to make the  climbing  more  dangerous.   How this  act  is not  proving a point  escapes me. The point  may  be  different  for  different  climbers  but it is still a point.   And  like  everything else  in this  game  the line  between  hero and zero is a  thin one.  We do  something  dangerous and get away with it  we are  heroes.  When we fail  we are often critiqued  for  pushing  beyond the  norms. 

Climbing is about making a point!

Bill W wrote:

Can you prove that Molly was trying to prove a point? Maybe she was just looking for a better challenge.

You should look up dick-measuring contest. More often then not it’s about them inches in climbing 

I think this continues for a common-sense reason: myopia.

As has been said in this thread, people skip bolts for a variety of reasons.  Many have nothing to do with trying to impress others or to realize some defensible position that the bolts should be chopped.

But Nick is steadfast - that Molly’s reason was one of the above two or both. And Nick hasn’t said he has met Molly, and still knows what drives her to climb the routes she attempts in the style of her choosing, indeed knows her reasoning that led this point of serious injury?

Myopic to think he knows her reasons.

Nick? Why is this so important to you?

Every one here understands what you have said, and yes, I think we would agree that climbing a sport route sans clipping the bolts could be to make a point about those bolts.

The "disagreement" is it is only ever to make a point about bolting.

That there is apparently not even the possibility of any other view? 

This becomes a head scratcher.

You are, after all, seeming to pick at the climber, after all?

That seems petty, considering they were grievously injured. 

If your argument was more how this accident was categorized in ANAC?

Go to the last pages in the book. There's a finite list. "Inadequate protection" is together with "placed no/inadequate protection. What category would you prefer?? Skipping some or all of the bolts seems to have proven "inadequate" to most of us, I think. I mean, you could lump about 90% of the accidents into the perfect hindsight category of, "that ended up being a bad idea", but we all know that! The ANAC gives people food for thought, reminders. So does this place, even the back and forth.

What, sir, is it that bugs you so much about this? That, seems more the question needing answering. A similar accident on one of your routes? The loss of a friend? A close call?

I hear deep, deep concern here, not mere stubborn just to be stubborn.

You're a developer...but also an ice climber. You have decades of experience. So what gives?

Best, Helen

Mark Frumkin wrote:

Climbing is about making a point!

Absolutely 100% don't not completely agree or disagree. 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

It's a  sport  climb.  Climbing  it without the  bolts  is all about  proving  a point.  If there were  no  bolts  and  it  was  just a n rx trad climb  there  would  be  no  obvious protection to  dismiss.  You would be  climbing with  every  available  piece of  protection. Your  only other  choice  would  be to  not  attempt  the  climb.   Climbing  a sport  climb  and  deliberately  not  clipping the  bolts  is a deliberate  act to make the  climbing  more  dangerous.   How this  act  is not  proving a point  escapes me. The point  may  be  different  for  different  climbers  but it is still a point.   And  like  everything else  in this  game  the line  between  hero and zero is a  thin one.  We do  something  dangerous and get away with it  we are  heroes.  When we fail  we are often critiqued  for  pushing  beyond the  norms. 

So what was your point in establishing a 5.6x pitch through rock so bad you couldn't place a bolt? IIRC you said because the view from the top was great. 

Hero or zero for a view? Or ego?

Your choice has the potential to harm others. Her choice only endangered her.