"I can't use a grigri" is a massive red flag?

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

Doctor drake. when you get to be over 60 years old you might just realize that  there is only so much time left and if what your doing is working why waste time learning something you don't feel the need to learn. I am all about learning things I feel like I want and or need to learn but if everything is working well the way i am currently doing it I may be inclined to skip the lecture. 

There are a lot of ways to define expertise or being an expert in something. One way is when you graduate from "you don't know what you don't know" to "you know exactly what you don't know." You have accumulated so much knowledge, skill, and awareness of your field of expertise that you know what is left to learn. But if you know exactly what you don't know, and you're aware of skills that you have not yet learned, and you choose to avoid learning those skills, then you have brought yourself back to not truly knowing what you don't know. Ugh, what a horrible sentence.

Being older, wiser, experienced, knowledgeable, and highly competent is wonderful because you are comfortable with yourself and can enjoy yourself more completely. But you also have the ability, and at times, perhaps, duty, to pass on information to others. MP has discussed at length the benefits of mentorship in climbing and also lamented the increasing ignorance among newer climbers as popularity swells and important information falls through the cracks.

Especially with regard to an activity with potentially grave consequences, such as climbing, I contend that those of us that know what we don't know have a borderline obligation to continually educate ourselves for the purposes of mentoring posterity, highlighting negative redundancies or potentially ineffective new equipment/techniques, and doing our best to keep the collective knowledge of the climbing population as high as possible. Personally, I always want to continue educating myself: working your mind through new puzzles can make you a better problem solver, keep you young, and who knows—you might be surprised to learn something new and helpful! 

Rather than assume you already have the best solution, assume that someone else does and then prove to yourself that you were right all along.

Doctor,I am mentoring a kid right now and knowing full well from too many certs to mention that it is important for the instructor to use the same equipment as the student I am not getting paid for this shit so I am breaking the rules.  I do however insist that my student follow current AMGA protocol on how they rig their rappels, third hands , teathers etc. I have learned that stuff thoroughly but I do it a bit differently because my way actually works better for me.   Old martial arts habits. Rank has its privileges. I do watch my student like a hawk and insist he does it the way I told him to do it. I am not against learning new tricks and I do try to stay current. I am against kids telling me what I have to do. 

Lena chitawrote:

I’m sure the original comment of not trusting the person (who’s unable to learn tie a figure 8) “in a car” was meant as an exaggeration.

I guess PWZ would know if it was an exaggeration or something worse. But, no matter how you slice it, stereotyping anyone / everyone who can’t tie a figure 8 in that light is immature. If you met this fellow, you would be surprised, or at least PWZ would be.

But yes, if someone has tried repeatedly, and failed, to learn how to tie a figure 8, I don’t think I can climb with that person AS A PARTNER. I might very well take them out climbing, they might very well enjoy it, but I would be 10000% treating them as I would a young child, when it came to climbing safety. I would be tying their knots, I would be double-checking (and backing up) their rappels, and I would not want them to belay me.

That’s just my point. It isn’t black and white. These “massive red flags” carry little true meaning other than limitations of the thrower of said flag. Partners are on a gray scale from just one-way TR sessions to mountaineering.

This discussions reminds me of that high school saying: my team rules, their team drools. Except high school was a long time ago  for the parties here.

Bill Lawrywrote:

I guess PWZ would know if it was an exaggeration or something worse. But, no matter how you slice it, stereotyping anyone / everyone who can’t tie a figure 8 in that light is immature. If you met this fellow, you would be surprised, or at least PWZ would be.

That’s just my point. It isn’t black and white. These “massive red flags” carry little true meaning other than limitations of the thrower of said flag. Partners are on a gray scale from just one-way TR sessions to mountaineering.

This discussions reminds me of that high school saying: my team rules, their team drools. Except high school was a long time ago  for the parties here.

I'd say we all have something to learn and should continue that until the end, but if you can't master something that simple, yeah I stand by my original statement. We weren't talking about cars, we were talking about the first basic skill, being fundamental, of connecting yourself to the rope. Don't pass that off on me, because there's not even a flag color for that.

If you want to talk about cars, sure. I'm concerned that person may have a driver's license, because that's a whole lot more involved than tying a knot or being a belay partner

PWZwrote:

I'd say we all have something to learn and should continue that until the end, but if you can't master something that simple, yeah I stand by my original statement. We weren't talking about cars, we were talking about the first basic skill, being fundamental, of connecting yourself to the rope. Don't pass that off on me, because there's not even a flag color for that.

Fair enough.

And I'll stand by my having this person as a "partner".   Even being able to connect to a rope is negotiable for me. Was recently climbing single pitch - two months ago - alongside a group of visually impaired folks, some totally blind. I would not have had a problem with teaming up with them with a reasonable protocol.  Evidently, I am not alone.

If you want to talk about cars, sure. I'm concerned that person may have a driver's license, because that's a whole lot more involved than tying a knot or being a belay partner

You brought up cars first.  And here I think you are out of your element, though I am too.  I just doubt that being able to tie a figure 8 is required to safely drive a car.  Caveat:  As long as automatic transmissions are allowed.  ... though your original post on this topic was just having them as a "passenger" in your car; or did I misunderstand?

I still say these kind of "massive red flags" say more about the limitations of the flagger than the so-called flagged. Am I wrong?

Bill your last line says it all. I have told people that I don’t know how to use a gri gri at times. I know how but would rather use an ATC. I always find myself short roping the leader and they are clunky. Bottom line is if someone knows how to belay and isn’t going to drop you who cares, let them use what they are comfortable with. 

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

Doctor,I am mentoring a kid right now and knowing full well from too many certs to mention that it is important for the instructor to use the same equipment as the student I am not getting paid for this shit so I am breaking the rules.  I do however insist that my student follow current AMGA protocol on how they rig their rappels, third hands , teathers etc. I have learned that stuff thoroughly but I do it a bit differently because my way actually works better for me.   Old martial arts habits. Rank has its privileges. I do watch my student like a hawk and insist he does it the way I told him to do it. I am not against learning new tricks and I do try to stay current. I am against kids telling me what I have to do. 

As a carpenter I sure hope you work for some really  old guys! I never insist on telling  anyone of any age what to do unless  they are on my clock and my job, at that point it's my way or the highway. 

 You really  do seem against using a GG, flags are popping on lots of radars if I'm  not mistaken. 

These things get ever more bizarre. In a strange twist yesterday, a new climbing gym wanted us to take a belay test SPECIFICALLY on GriGri+. They allow belaying with all sorts of devices, our grigri was just fine to belay on, ONCE we passed the test… we even could whip out an ATC, if we wanted to. But for the test we had to use a plus.

I really can’t see the logic of it. If you are worried that I’ll drop my climber on lowering, and I need the anti-panic feature WHILE the gym employee is backing me up for the test, how is it ok to then say, use whatever you want? Why not test on the device that people will actually use?

I’ve come across one other gym that did the complete opposite: have to belay with an ATC for the lead test, then feel free to use whatever you want. That was also bizarre, but at least made some sense. If the belayer can master hand-on-the-brake, they are probably reasonably safe.

But the reverse? Test on grigri+, then use whatever you want makes no sense to me, whatsoever! 

Lena chitawrote:

These things get ever more bizarre. In a strange twist yesterday, a new climbing gym wanted us to take a belay test SPECIFICALLY on GriGri+. They allow belaying with all sorts of devices, our grigri was just fine to belay on, ONCE we passed the test… we even could whip out an ATC, if we wanted to. But for the test we had to use a plus.

I really can’t see the logic of it. If you are worried that I’ll drop my climber on lowering, and I need the anti-panic feature WHILE the gym employee is backing me up for the test, how is it ok to then say, use whatever you want? Why not test on the device that people will actually use?

I’ve come across one other gym that did the complete opposite: have to belay with an ATC for the lead test, then feel free to use whatever you want. That was also bizarre, but at least made some sense. If the belayer can master hand-on-the-brake, they are probably reasonably safe.

But the reverse? Test on grigri+, then use whatever you want makes no sense to me, whatsoever! 

Agree it’s strange.

At one gym they do require a GriGri at all times, but two prefer ATC for the test and whatever you want to use after passing the test.

It may be they want you to be proficient with a device you’re not already accustomed to see if you are experienced enough to use an unfamiliar device?

Whatever the reason, gyms carry some liability that a local crag doesn’t.

Adapt or die, and swear allegiance to progress. Because progress by itself.

MM. I don't tell anyone how to do their carpentry. I am mentoring a kid in climbing.  I am not at all against gri Gris. I just didn't like the tone of the op. 

I hope somebody else has pointed out by now that when the Gri-gri was introduced, the sticht plate had been on the scene for 22 years. Insisting today on claiming gri-gris are unsafe/too complicated and insisting on a tube-style device today is more ludicrous than claiming tube devices were unsafe/too complicated and insisting on a hip belay, 32 years ago when gri-gris were first introduced.

You may as well say that you don't trust cams because they're too complicated.

100%, refusal to learn a Gri-gri is a red flag.

Petsfed 00wrote:

claiming tube devices were unsafe/too complicated and insisting on a hip belay, 32 years ago when gri-gris were first introduced.

This never happened as far as I know?

Figure 8/Stitch Plate were commonly used. ATC was thought to pinch the rope more than a Figure 8 or Stitch, but mostly people used Tubes when they were more widely distributed.

Petzl made pretty decent ascending devices 32 years ago. I didn’t really remember the GriGri being commonly in use at that time?

Technology is generally very slow to adopt, but the people opposed to GriGri aren’t dinosaurs whom simply “hate anything new”. They have good reasons to not want to use one.

In my limited experience, I do appreciate the GriGri, mostly at the gym and I’m betting at sports crags. In the gym, it’s not uncommon to belay a climber up a 35 foot wall for up to 40 minutes.

This argument isn’t really about “old fuds” refusing to adapt. It’s more about the sort of climbing people do and the best tools for the application.

Li Huwrote:

This never happened as far as I know?

Figure 8/Stitch Plate were commonly used. ATC was thought to pinch the rope more than a Figure 8 or Stitch, but mostly people used Tubes when they were more widely distributed.

Petzl made pretty decent ascending devices 32 years ago. I didn’t really remember the GriGri being commonly in use at that time?

Technology is generally very slow to adopt, but the people opposed to GriGri aren’t dinosaurs whom simply “hate anything new”. They have good reasons to not want to use one.

In my limited experience, I do appreciate the GriGri, mostly at the gym and I’m betting at sports crags. In the gym, it’s not uncommon to belay a climber up a 35 foot wall for up to 40 minutes.

This argument isn’t really about “old fuds” refusing to adapt. It’s more about the sort of climbing people do and the best tools for the application.

I have met several people who recall being pretty put out that they weren't allowed to use the belay method they were most comfortable with, and caught hundreds of falls with. And it was because the gym made them use a device, not a hip belay, and later a tube-style device, and not a figure 8 in "sport mode".

When I was working at rockin'n'jammin, in Denver, around 2010, I encountered a couple crusty old dudes who wanted to hip belay and we would not allow it (during that same period of time, I climbed with a guy who insisted on girth hitching wired stoppers with nylon slings, because they got away with it all the time in the 70s, so it wasn't just in my professional life).

Petsfed 00wrote:

I have met several people who recall being pretty put out that they weren't allowed to use the belay method they were most comfortable with, and caught hundreds of falls with. And it was because the gym made them use a device, not a hip belay, and later a tube-style device, and not a figure 8 in "sport mode".

In light of this comment, I've been wondering---how often did hip belays fail? I climbed for a number of years--not recalling how many--when such belays were the 'state of the art'---actually the totality of the 'art', as they had been for at least a couple of decades. During those same years I read the AAC Accident Reports ( including those from earlier years) pretty assiduously and perused other climbing literature. I cannot recall any accounts of hip belay failures or otherwise of climbers being dropped. It probably happened on occasion, but nothing that stands out--compared to the number of such accidents I am aware of with more 'modern' devices. I personally once  caught a factor 2 fall directly onto ( and past) my hanging belay. I know that others did so as well ( for example Kamps catching  Chouinard's 100+ fooot fall attempting the North Face of Crooked Thumb in the Tetons). Hip belays worked. Still, once they appeared, I did switch to different belay devices over time--finding that, for me, I preferred their obvious advantages over the hip belay. However, again for me and the type of climbing that I most often do, I have not found that the Gri-gri or other ABDs provide similar advantages over the ATC.

I'm not advocating that gyms allow hip belays or that we should stop using tubes, ABDs, etc, but just acknowledge that it isn't necessarily the technique/ device being used, but the person using it that is the key factor---and that the 'old ways' aren't automatically any more dangerous than current methods. Just because there are newer methods, which often do have various advantages, does not mean that those old ways should be so totally disparaged ( personally I think that it is a good idea for anyone who plans on climbing away from gyms and easily accessible, popular crags learn things like tying in in directly with the rope, hip belays, body and carabiner break rappels---just in case). I prefer to drive a car with an automatic transmission, but have no problems with my friends who still drive standard. I am, however, very dubious of so-called 'self-driving' vehicles. Innovation and change are necessary and, often, good, but so are 'tried and true' methods in certain circumstances---it should be a matter of balance and individual choice.

Artem Vee wrote:

The problem with this argument is that gri gris DO have very obvious benefits over an ATC, same as a stitch plate has an obvious benefit over a hip belay. It’s a clear progression in climbing technology.

A careful re-read of Alan’s post would show he is not making an unqualified argument for the hip belay or the ATC.

Less as a linear progression. More as evolution where the existence of a single species isn’t the ultimate.

Artem, I think that at one basic level, we don't necessarily disagree---that each type of device has certain tasks that each is 'better suited for'. Most of those that your specified for which you feel that a Gri-gri is better suited, are aspects of the sport that I ( and many others) do not engage in ( and in the gym context, which has been a major component of these discussions, are mostly irrelevant). Were I to be involved in climbing big walls, rope soloing, simul-climbing, etc,, then probably I would consider a Gri-gri or other type of ABD. But since those types of climbing are not on my 'agenda' then, I feel that ( again FOR ME) an ATC is the better option.

There are several specifics, though,where I disagree with you. Such as that you can belay with a Gri-gri with the 'exact same simplicity'  as with an ATC, that there is 'much simpler slack management', and that top-rope and rappel set-ups are more efficient. The specifics of these disagreements have been discussed previously in this and other related threads, so it is not necessary to repeat them. But, as one example, the 'choreography' for the "correct" way to belay a leader with a Gri-gri that you described up-thread is far more complicated than doing so with an ATC. Clearly, you have that method ' wired' so that it works for you, but it is incorrect to describe it as 'simple'.

Artem Vee wrote:

you can belay with a gri gri with the exact same simplicity as you would belay with an ATC, but with all the added benefits of a gri gri (much quicker slack management

Paying out feet of slack for a quick clip is difficult with a Gri UNLESS you defeat the cam. Petzl recommends a way to do that while keeping three fingers of the brake hand on the rope. (And states other ways to avoid defeating the cam.) An inexperienced or distracted belayer could still lose control of the rope during a lead fall while clipping, by maintaining compression of the cam while an additional 3-4 feet of rope is out for clipping. This would already add more than 6-8 feet to the distance of the lead fall — which can compound the potential for loss of control. I have seen this happen, eventually stopping the fall before the leader could have been injured. It can increase the risk of the leader hitting obstacles, including the ground.

We often see belayers leaving big loops of slack dangling. This makes feeding slack through an Gri easier because the slack is already out. This is fine for overhanging climbs because the leader can swing into the wall and bash knees, etc, and be injured if there’s not enough rope out. Instead of leaving a loop of slack dangling, I like to jump up when the leader falls — possible only when belaying from the ground. If the climb is vertical or less, leaving a loop of slack dangling would make a leader fall longer, increasing the risk of hitting obstacles, including the ground. Belaying with a device that can easily brake a lead fall — and won’t lock when you don’t want it to — is best. IMO the Gri isn’t that device. 

Nick Goldsmithwrote:

MM. I don't tell anyone how to do their carpentry. I am mentoring a kid in climbing.  I am not at all against gri Gris. I just didn't like the tone of the op. 

In the last few years I have learned a ton of new techniques from people half my age , certainly they weren't making me learn but I probably would have been flagged if I  didn't make an effort. Some folks (including myself BITD) have a need to go for it every single time they climb and are so used to having a GG down below that it has become mandatory for them so I get the OP now. I'd definitely have less partners if I said won't or can't or pulled the age card, especially when I'm the meat anchor down on the ground.

George Bracksieckwrote:

Paying out feet of slack for a quick clip is difficult with a Gri UNLESS you defeat the cam. Petzl recommends a way to do that while keeping three fingers of the brake hand on the rope. (And states other ways to avoid defeating the cam.) An inexperienced or distracted belayer could still lose control of the rope during a lead fall while clipping, by maintaining compression of the cam while an additional 3-4 feet of rope is out for clipping. This would already add more than 6-8 feet to the distance of the lead fall — which can compound the potential for loss of control. I have seen this happen, eventually stopping the fall before the leader could have been injured. It can increase the risk of the leader hitting obstacles, including the ground.

We often see belayers leaving big loops of slack dangling. This makes feeding slack through an Gri easier because the slack is already out. This is fine for overhanging climbs because the leader can swing into the wall and bash knees, etc, and be injured if there’s not enough rope out. Instead of leaving a loop of slack dangling, I like to jump up when the leader falls — possible only when belaying from the ground. If the climb is vertical or less, leaving a loop of slack dangling would make a leader fall longer, increasing the risk of hitting obstacles, including the ground. Belaying with a device that can easily brake a lead fall — and won’t lock when you don’t want it to — is best. IMO the Gri isn’t that device. 

Aren't you the one advocating for the mad rock lifeguard device? What is better about it? I haven't used one.