Most Dangerous Rock Climbs in the USA

Ricky Harlinewrote:

Do you have any insight into why that might be? 

It’s a combination of factors. Like Kevin says, there is significant exfoliation and loose rock, especially on the north side and NW Recess routes. Three of the worst accidents I’ve been close to up there were rockfall. One, the Sahara Terror catastrophe Kevin mentioned, was fatal. Also, it’s a complicated crag and lots of climbers have route finding issues. And relative ease of access near a large urban area attracts climbers who are below their pay grade when confronted by the nature of the thing.

It's too bad, really, since Tahquitz offers up some of the best granite climbing around. Routes like Vampire and Green Arch are stunning, and of course there are countless more.

edit: The loose rock on Sahara Terror was not sitting on a ledge. Neither was the one I watched very nearly kill a guy on the Long Climb, or the one that came within seconds of ripping a newly wed couple to shreds on Fingertrip. I have written accounts of these and other incidents, but I don't see the need to get into that detail here.

Pretty much any grade VII routes. Anytime you're mixing in super long approaches, super remote areas, limited options for getting help in an emergency, extreme weather, high altitude, massively long climbs on rock that is rarely climbed, mixed climbing, aid, snow and ice, and you're about as risky as you can get.

20 kNwrote:

Pretty much any grade VII routes. Anytime you're mixing in super long approaches, super remote areas, limited options for getting help in an emergency, extreme weather, high altitude, massively long climbs on rock that is rarely climbed, mixed climbing, aid, snow and ice, and you're about as risky as you can get.

Are there any legit VII climbs in the USA?

Maybe the Wine Bottle or SE face of Dickey? Also the unclimbed side of Devil’s Thumb, which could easily be known as one of the most dangerous routes in the US?

phylp phylpwrote:

Guided by your criteria, I searched the database forUS  trad routes rated 11c to 5.15.  There were 20 pages.  I scanned the first 10 pages for R and X rated routes.  Then I got bored and stopped looking. There weren't all that many R and X, but there seem to be clusters in the South Platte, Boulder and Golden. (How many of these would turn out to be Jim Beyer routes? - didn't bother to look.) I did notice that many of these routes only have star ratings from 1-3 people.  I didn't drill down any deeper.

This approach might yield some interesting data if someone was interested enough to pursue it.  But the data in the database is flawed - it's still missing many routes.  Perhaps if a route has a reputation that precedes it, it just hasn't been repeated, or it's been repeated by people who have no interest in entering a route on MP.

Hank, will you share what were the truly scariest routes you ever did?

"Guided by my criteria", yeah sorry about that as that wasn't my intention. I'm a barely stable burnout that still climbs pretty good, but who really cares?

Your search brought up some great points though  about climbers who are into scary/dangerous climbs and how or why they might not get entered into the MP database. I think individual guidebooks would have more to gain in adding all the routes and info they can than MP in that area.

Now that I live in the desert I'm finding those guys and girls rarely rate anything R or X because most everything in the desert is just scary and dangerous so often it's not usually highlighted in the description. Just assume most adventure routes in the desert have some grim consequences all over them and they're still classics.

I'm personally guilty of adding a few death routes into the MP database that only have 2 or 3 ascents(since 1984 or whatever) and pretty much nobody is going to care as they're really just a bad idea that only benefit the very few climbers that would know this info from some other source anyways. So there's an answer as to why there's so few you can find in the database here. For all the spray, the Southern Belle doesn't exist on this site, probably because the user group that would care is tiny.

Another flaw in being guided by my criteria is starting your search at 5.12, there's entirely far more dangerous climbs that are below 5.12. Orange Blossom Special at Stone Mountain, NC has a nightmare 10b 1st pitch, a truly hideous runout and they don't call it anything because the whole damn area is just bold af. This rings true for many other crags. As well, my mind is being changed with other climbers in this thread mentioning remoteness and other criteria as a factor in deciding danger and I'm finding that much of this holds true as hell.

As for my scariest climbs, I wasn't scared on any of them really. I was pretty sure I was going to fire everytime so I wasn't that scared. The Southern Belle was only scary for the last 90 seconds when I realized I was off route and then realizing I was for sure gonna fall and it was for sure gonna be bad.

Literally my scariest lead was Sheer Terror in Eldo. I was on a tear then, almost 40 years old and Rock and Ice was doing a feature on me, but the Beth Rodden picture of her climbing Meltdown(I think) was going to be on the cover. I really wanted to be on the cover though and somehow it was passed to me that if I did the 2nd ascent of Sheer Terror and got good enough pics then they'd maybe bump Beth to the inside cover and I'd probably get the cover. I was already going to do Sheer Terror anyways, but the shitty self-aggrandizing part of me leading that horror show weather it was the right time or not just for a cover made that the scariest climb I ever did, my poor fucking belayer just sitting there with a rope going through his gri gri for no reason at that point.. Just a terrible reason to hang it all on the line like that, and for that reason.

Hank Caylorwrote:

Very interesting commentary, thanks.  

 Now that I live in the desert I'm finding those guys and girls rarely rate anything R or X because most everything in the desert is just scary and dangerous so often it's not usually highlighted in the description. Just assume most adventure routes in the desert have some grim consequences all over them and they're still classics.

Well, that's good to know! Note to self!

Another flaw in being guided by my criteria is starting your search at 5.12, there's entirely far more dangerous climbs that are below 5.12. 

Well, I thought we might be able to agree that climbs rated 11c and above were not in the category of "easy moderates " climbs.  I guess my thinking was, at what grade would you be able to say that inexperience and cluelessness was not a major factor. Not the inherent danger of the climb itself. Newer climbers, for whatever reason, seem to have some kind of impression that 5.10 is going to be automatically easy.

As for my scariest climbs, I wasn't scared on any of them really. I was pretty sure I was going to fire everytime so I wasn't that scared. The Southern Belle was only scary for the last 90 seconds when I realized I was off route and then realizing I was for sure gonna fall and it was for sure gonna be bad.

This was actually my first thought when I was considering the whole question.  Something r-rated isn't dangerous to the person who is climbing it if they know they are not going to fall.  And the vast majority of the time they don't.  I think potential for getting off route - which has to be more of an issue with a very long multipitch alpine route - and loose rock, have to be bigger factors than just an R-rating. But combining all three of those, at a harder grade where there is less of a margin for recovering from something unexpected...

X rated climbs with lack of protection are by definition the most dangerous for people doing them at grades close to their limits.  The route can be considered objectively dangerous but to a lot of people climbing it, it can be subjectively safe.  Again, it's the "not going to fall" knowledge which only rarely is proved wrong.

The 10a Clyde Spire behind Picture Pk. Climbing isn't hard, and the crux pitch is absolutely fun. Lots of 5.fun climbing in the alpine sqeezed between choss. Until get close to the top and begin to realize part of the Clyde Spire shouldn't even still be standing. Let alone being climbed on. Route finding becomes crucial. Then you get to the summit and have to figure how to get off the sucker. No real safe way down that wouldn't involve lots of extra miles. Lots of tricks were pulled outta the bag for a as safe as possible descent. And whatever I did to get down, I guarantee that part of the rock no longer exists...

Jay Gustafwrote:

Maybe the Wine Bottle or SE face of Dickey? Also the unclimbed side of Devil’s Thumb, which could easily be known as one of the most dangerous routes in the US?

These are alpine routes, even if with considerable rock climbing, but OP’s question specified “rock climbs”, so I assume that he wasn’t looking for alpine routes. In general, though, even pretty easy alpine routes, at least those involving glaciated terrain, are generally more inherently dangerous than most pure rock climbs.

Tim Stichwrote:

Werk's Supp had two fatalities days apart. First one was a visiting leader that failed to find any decent pro within the first thirty feet of pitch one. He falls, decks, and sadly dies. His fiancée comes out to talk with the park rangers, who then take her to view the scene of the accident. While they are talking, a free soloist from Oklahoma who had taken a serious fall soloing in the past pops off the route and decks right next to them with fatal results.

Jesus that is so sad.

Tradibanwrote:

The ones with the most noobs.

What is “danger” anyway? To me it’s tricky routes with the least predictability, but to most people it’s probably the ones with the most deaths or injury.

The tricky ones only get attempted by those worthy and therefore not much death/injury.

Tis a silly question.

Statically, injuries are actually more common in experienced climbers.

Alan Rubinwrote:

While not necessarily objectively the most dangerous route, Sam’s Swan Song on Cannon Mt., NH has seen multiple serious accidents and incidents, including several fatalities. It has a combination of loose rock ( large loose blocks are a common feature on Cannon, but seem particularly so on that route), modest grade (5.7), length, difficult route finding, changeable weather that comes from behind the mountain, which all contribute to the accident rate.

San's has sort of fallen off most people's radar I think - although it used to be quite popular.  Moby Grape is now the comparable route of choice and while it is safer in terms of loose rock (at least by Cannon standards) it does seem to have its share on incidents.

Tradibanwrote:

Like I have said, it depends on your definition of “dangerous”. Which begs the question;

OP! What is your definition of “dangerous” and better yet, why are you asking?? What do you really want to know?

For the purposes of this question, I am considering the definition dangerous to include most of the perspectives mentioned:

famed as a dangerous route by rumor (the least concrete), actual number of accidents occurring, number of fatalities, the obstacles present (potential rockfall, bad rock, spaced bolts or lack of bolts, insecure gear placements, potential for dangerous falls, ledges or other accident potentials in the terrain) or other reasons, feel free to comment other reasons you feel are relevant.

Of course without any real data it's really the number of accidents/fatalities based on the number of actual climbers attempting the route. For example if two people get into accidents in a row, it may be random but then fable the route as dangerous.

Mostly interested in public opinion as it's a fascinating topic.

Rawk Tawkwrote:

Statically, injuries are actually more common in experienced climbers.

Define “experienced”.

Accident reports and news reports often refer to the victim as “experienced” but if you dig deeper you will see their “experience” is brief or non-relevent.

Furthermore some people who have been climbing quite awhile just never expand their skills and thus become “Perma-Noobs”.

The more you knoooooow!

Rawk Tawkwrote:

Statically, injuries are actually more common in experienced climbers.

One: Where did you get this info?

Two: What type of injury’s are your stats looking at? Most climbing injuries I know of are self inflicted “try hard” injuries (muscle and tendons) not injuries from accidents.

As far as “experience” there is always this

Who is the chat bot? I know there are a lot of them but at this point people assume everyone is. 

Matt Lane wrote:

There are a few brutally crumbly, crazy climbs involving equalizing nails hammered into the wall and stuff like that I've seen. The one above is in Northeastern Colorado, but there's also some crazy ones out near Grand Junction. 

If you're bored it's worth perusing some of these insane Paul Ross routes

https://www.mountainproject.com/area/106084987/things-of-beauty-aka-interstate-i-70-towers

Tradibanwrote:

The ones with the most noobs.

Epinephrine is one of the safest routes out there, yet sees some of the most rescues of any climb in the states :)

Allen Sandersonwrote:

Satan's Corner

Wait why?

Kevin Mokracekwrote:

Are there any legit VII climbs in the USA?

Zero. Except maybe traversing across the entire face of El Cap, but that isint a true grade VII in that it is not in alpine conditions.

I'd put forth Super Pin.  The comment sections are an entraining read. Either of the routes in their present state are quite dangerous. The Pete Cleveland route has only seen a few repeats.  Pete's belayer just quite belaying during the first ascent. Paul Piana, a 5.14 climber, failed to complete the route.  

Here is a good article about the first ascent and the history at the time.  The Climb of Superpin.  Rgold is quoted in this article.