Time to be grownups and say:

trailridgewrote:

Probably. Didn't he start a clothing company with his name on it? Warren Harding on the other hand probably not. Or if he did it would it be pretty over top and funny

They were all spray lords in one way or another. Think about Robbins attempting to erase the original Wall of Early Morning Light (he came to his senses after chopping the first 4 pitches). Warren Harding appeared in a beer or wine advertisement and eventually wrote Downward Bound.

He's rage baiting and it's working. Seems to be pretty strong, maybe if he was intelligent and not just addicted to the gram he could try climbing stuff that climbers would actually find impressive...

Jabroni McChufferson wrote:

What would be impressive?

North face of North Twin

Jabroni McChufferson wrote:

What would be impressive?

I dunno, I'm sure the answer varies for everyone. I'm most interested in, and most impressed by, difficult mixed routes in alpine terrain, whether climbed in free solo style or belayed the whole time. 

To clarify, I think doing things to impress other people is not a good starting point, but it's certainly a component in high level climbing. Clearly for Lincoln, it's very important, but I feel like his goal is to impress the average Joe who's watching YouTube shorts while taking a shit. He talks about wanting to be a sponsored athlete... well he's probably strong enough, and brave enough, to do some impressive accents that would actually be considered cutting edge and would get him some positive recognition. Instead he does some long sport route and brags about falcons flying around and narrowly missing rainy weather while he was on the rock. Stupid. 

T Taylorwrote:

The point about liability is also absurd. Most municipalities, parks, land held by some government entity are self insured. They do not pay for insurance. So in order for a crag to get shut down for liability, a claim would need to be paid out from the parks wrong doing.

If your crags are on private property the liability rate is likely derived from ISO loss costs. Thus many claims would have to be paid if the rate was going to go up because of free soloing deaths.

The liability point is valid in some places. A climbing accident on state property in HI shut the crag down for several years, and the state paid $15.4 million following the deaths of two hikers.

Lane Mathiswrote:

Given the chance, do you think the legends of yesteryear would have been modern day spray lords?

Would Royal Robbins be universally hated with access to a keyboard during the height of his career? 

This is a very interesting question. At least in their early years, Robbins and most of the leading climbers of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, were very 'outspoken' in being against publicizing climbing. That was one of the main areas of tension between Robbins and Harding, the latter being viewed by the former as a 'publicity seeker'. Yet, Robbins wrote quite prolifically for the climbing publications of the era ( as limited as they were), and surely wasn't shy about being known as the leading Yosemite ( and US) climber of the period. The distinction, it seems, is that publicity within the climbing community was acceptable, but marketing climbing to the 'general public' was not. As mentioned by others above, over time this attitude was 'modified' as Robbins, Chouinard and others used their climbing 'resumes' to build their businesses--first mostly focused within the climbing community, but later to the greater 'market'.

So, the youthful Robbins, Chouinard and their contemporaries---during their most prolific climbing years, would have distained LK's social media onslaught, Harding would have jumped right in!!!!

Permabetawrote:

The liability point is valid in some places. A climbing accident on state property in HI shut the crag down for several years, and the state paid $15.4 million following the deaths of two hikers.

This is the exact point I’m making. Hawaii parks was clearly in the wrong here. If you maintain a park with a viewpoint and the trails erodes away and people fall to their death that is a fair claim to make. 

If someone dies free soloing what fortious claim can be made against the crag? What is the legal case to be made against a park for someone dieing while free soloing? If there was a strong legal case I think we would see a claim with indemnity for whoever owns the flat irons. We would also see more claims being brought for people die due to missuse of anchor hardware.

Clearly what is working people up is not the fact that he's free soloing, but the tone and presentation of free soloing as clickbait Instagram/YouTube content. Which is not for me at all. But you know what, it's a choice whether or not to engage with something you don't like. The only times I ever think about Lincoln Knowles are when I log on here and see you all arguing about him.

People handwringing about him influencing impressionable youths to go free soloing... I couldn't care less what effect he has on other people.

T Taylorwrote:

This is the exact point I’m making. Hawaii parks was clearly in the wrong here. If you maintain a park with a viewpoint and the trails erodes away and people fall to their death that is a fair claim to make. 

If someone dies free soloing what fortious claim can be made against the crag? What is the legal case to be made against a park for someone dieing while free soloing? If there was a strong legal case I think we would see a claim with indemnity for whoever owns the flat irons. We would also see more claims being brought for people die due to missuse of anchor hardware.

You are underestimating the liability ( or the concern about potential such lawsuits) issue, even for public entities. It can be more complicated than you think. However, I agree, that it is a often used ( by landowners/managers) as a convenient excuse, when the real issue is that they just don't want to 'be bothered' by having climbing on ( or to continue on) 'their' land.

While more accidents overall occur to parties involved in roped climbing, free soloing accidents ( or the likely results of such accidents), for obvious reasons, almost inevitably garner more press coverage, often with a negative 'slant'.

Alan Rubinwrote:

You are underestimating the liability ( or the concern about potential such lawsuits) issue, even for public entities. It can be more complicated than you think. 

can you expand on this? I am genuinely curious? 

T Taylorwrote:

can you expand on this? I am genuinely curious? 

I'm traveling so can't give a detailed answer. Varies from state to state, but in almost all of them there is some sort of loophole or potential loophole, that may allow a suit from an aggressive attorney. And even government lawyers want to avoid potential litigation if at all possible, so often advise managers to 'play it safe'. Not a government body and a different specific situation, but look at what happened in the litigation over an auto belay incident in Seattle that is being discussed in a different thread---lawyers and insurance companies more often than not want to take the easy way out and settle ( or just not permit situations that could lead to a suit) rather than risk trial.

It’s not just liability in the legal sense, it’s also local authorities becoming genuinely concerned about public safety(or at least the next election cycle) and doing what politicians and public officials do - make blunt, ill-informed and over-broad rules and then declare themselves saviors of the people.

So what yall wish to do is what?  Ban freesoloing?  Ban advertising/promoting freesoloing?  For the greater good of maintaining access to climbing?

I want to ban banning.

Jabroni McChufferson wrote:

Do I hold YouTube, the gram and MP liable for my brainrot? 

Excellent question. Maybe a massive class action lawsuit could eventually give an answer to that question. It's similar to blaming the cartel for so many addicts. We send the military after cartels. Of course sometimes the military works with the cartels.... So confusing!

We’re involved in a silly, ego driven pursuit for purely selfish reasons.

I mean we choose to find the most contrived, most difficult method to get up to the top of a thing.

It’s not like doing this will give us money, fame, or sexy fun times with other people. In fact pursuing this activity will often cause us a large amount of time, money, personal health, and reduce sex gun times.

In the end it’s just a really fun but silly pursuit that doesn’t matter.

Chad Millerwrote:

We’re involved in a silly, ego driven pursuit for purely selfish reasons.

I mean we choose to find the most contrived, most difficult method to get up to the top of a thing.

It’s not like doing this will give us money, fame, or sexy fun times with other people. In fact pursuing this activity will often cause us a large amount of time, money, personal health, and reduce sex gun times.

In the end it’s just a really fun but silly pursuit that doesn’t matter.

Don't put everyone in your boat bubba.

T Taylorwrote:

This is the exact point I’m making. Hawaii parks was clearly in the wrong here. If you maintain a park with a viewpoint and the trails erodes away and people fall to their death that is a fair claim to make. 

If someone dies free soloing what fortious claim can be made against the crag? What is the legal case to be made against a park for someone dieing while free soloing? If there was a strong legal case I think we would see a claim with indemnity for whoever owns the flat irons. We would also see more claims being brought for people die due to missuse of anchor hardware.

That’s not what happened.

The hikers strayed off the state-maintained, sanctioned route, to an unmarked trail, probably made by other hikers, or feral pigs. There are many such “spurs” on popular trails in Hawaii (and elsewhere, for that matter) - it’s easy to identify and differentiate them from the main paths.

One of the victims was married to a personal injury attorney (she may have been a lawyer as well, IIRC), and, surprise!, he sued, claiming the state needs signage to warn of the dangers associated with every trail. Never mind that such signs existed on the main trail, and the spur scaled an obviously unstable, damp cliff adjacent to a waterfall. Apparently, every path needs its own, dedicated warning.

The climbing accident occurred because a YMCA group was teaching “safety” while climbing above a group of unhelmeted kids. The “instructor“ kicked a rock down, and caused a closed head injury. Both YMCA and the state were sued.

Anyway, both illustrate people doing stupid things on public land creates liability for land owners.

M Mwrote:

Don't put everyone in your boat bubba.

I apologize. I’m sure your pursuit of climbing is selfless and to cure cancer.   

Chad Millerwrote:

I apologize. I’m sure your pursuit of climbing is selfless and to cure cancer.   

speak for yourself bubba