Thoughts on Girth Hitch Equalisation

I just published this on my Substack, and thought I'd repost it here, as it's always good to see what the people on MP think about these things.

When I first started climbing in the 80s (I did start in the 70s, but only started buying kit in the 80s), the only slings that climbers seemed to carry were Troll Super Blues, which were “1 inch” (the UK had gone metric in 1965, but continued to use British Imperial, pints, feet, pounds, etc., and still does). If you do the conversion, at 25 mm, they were only one and a half times the diameter of a 21st-century climbing sling (8 mm to 10 mm Dyneema), but they were also very, very stiff, around 2–3 mm when new, but soon got fatter with use. Strength-wise, I think they were rated as having a safe working load (SWL) of 4500 lbs, so 20 kN, but I expect testing was pretty rudimentary, the stuff you’d do in a shed, and was decades away from 3 Sigma or digital testing. The end result was these slings had a breaking strain closer to 40 kN, as demonstrated by old Troll slings (and harnesses) still passing minimum breaking strains 50 years after coming off the sewing machine.

What’s this got to do with girth-hitched equalised anchors? Well, these Troll slings, and equivalent slings made by US and European companies like Chouinard, Forrest, Edelrid, etc., had limited utility beyond being used on spikes or extending anchor points (remember, the quickdraw had yet to be invented!), as any knots tended to be bulky and stiff, and the only real anchor equalisation, if any, was done using the climbing rope(s), that is, if any equalisation was done at all. In the UK and Europe, on easy routes where a single rope was used, a lot of classic routes would have a single anchor point, like a tree, spike, or boulder, or a rat’s nest of pitons. On harder routes, where two ropes were used, you could tie off each rope to two anchor points, which was generally “good enough”, until it wasn’t. You either clipped one rope into each piece with an overhand on a bight, or clove hitch, guestimating the correct length to achieve some kind of equalisation, or, if you wanted to be gucci, you’d clip the anchors and run the ropes back to your harness to achieve a perfect tension (but only for a perfectly directed force).

In the US, where climbers only had one rope, even on the hardest routes, you ended up with such things as “death triangles”, where all the anchor points had a single sling threaded through each one, and you just clipped into this loop (an ‘egg basket’ technique, as if the sling broke, you had nothing). Or, you made a chain anchor, with the rope clipped into the best piece, and then clove-hitched onto the next pieces one at a time. This was safer, but each piece had to take the entire load. I don’t have the figures, but I’ve always got the impression that US climbing had far more cases of death or injury from anchor failure, but these techniques are perhaps a result of a much wider use of bolts at belay anchors, something rare in Euroland.

Although climbers had slings, they tended to be 4 and 8 feet (or 60 cm and 120 cm, and before you email me, yes, some call 4-foot slings 8-foot, and 8-foot slings 16, but I never did), and didn’t use them for equalisation, as they were too thick, stiff, and not really long enough.

Even when softer and thinner nylon slings appeared on the market, from Troll, Wild Country, Edelrid and Mammut, first 22 mm, then 19 mm and finally 16 mm, each coming closer to the minimum breaking strain (going from perhaps 40 kN to 22 kN), climbers still didn’t really begin to equalise anchors with slings.

Even on big wall climbs, where forces are huge, climbers might make use of 120 cm slings between bolts with a sliding X, or two 60 cm slings, but knots would not be tied, as they would be really hard to untie.

I think one of the things that had a major impact on rope technique was the explosion in multi-pitch sport routes, where climbers switched to single ropes. Really, the quality of the anchors on modern routes means you could just connect yourself to a single bolt, and then back this up to the second; climbers began to equalise these anchors with either a sling or a bunny ears knot, the latter only used if switching leads.

How these anchors were equalised was with either a sliding X, or by adding a figure 8 or overhand knot to the sling, but seeing as we were still in the age of the nylon sling, which seemed pretty skinny compared to our old 25 mm Super Blue-style slings, people generally went for the knotted method.

By this point in the story, climbing was generally not really a game of equalisation, but more a game of redundancy, which seemed to work pretty well. You would hear stories of belays taking a factor 2 fall, and all the pieces but one ripping out, but nothing that really made people question the need to tighten everything up.

To my mind, the real change began when we started to hear whispers about this thing called a cordelette, a 5 to 7 metre length of 7 mm cord, used to link all the anchor points together, and then create a single masterpoint, where all the force could be directed out equally to each arm, like a spider clinging to a wall. Really, this tool and method is extremely specialised and focused on one type of climbing, bringing up novice climbers, fixing them to a belay, and then climbing on. The guide carries two cordelettes and rotates them from belay to belay. This length of cord can also serve to aid them in self-rescue techniques like simultaneous rappel, hauling, or rap anchors.

It’s interesting to consider the cordelette as the first Web 1.0 climbing technique, something you’d only seen in one-line descriptions in US magazines before the Web, but which overnight became the only way to belay safely, the cordelette the only way to make a solid belay anchor. The upside of this was that the technique really made people go up a gear in terms of thinking harder about making solid belays, good, when climbing was really moving from strength to strength, the rise in the average grade people climbed meaning there would be fewer spike or tree belays at the end of each pitch. Now, in the UK at least, climbers were having to construct more and more complex anchors, especially when the no-bolt ethic had to be upheld. You also had more and more climbers taking falls on all grades of routes, and although factor 2 falls remained rare, the likelihood of them rapidly increased.

It was around this time that Dyneema began to take over, going from expensive and experimental, then neck and neck with nylon, then the default. They started at a conservative (I think) 13 mm, then as people adapted to them, and “trusted the (material) science”, rapidly slimmed down to 10 mm, then 8 mm, and finally 6 mm. As the slings got thinner and lighter, they also became more knottable, and also could be much longer without a large increase in bulk and weight. For example, a 240 cm 25 mm Super Blue sling would require its own backpack, but a 6 mm Dyneema one could fit in a pocket.

continued below -

These two things created a new start in belay building, the curdled a sort of reset, using either 7 mm cord or new skinny Dyneema slings, creating a standard, but then evolving away from the cordelette, to other ways of achieving the same ends, as a cordelette is often overkill, with new ways of doing things, like the quad.

It should also be said that in this mad dash to modernity and new, better things, much of what climbers did in the past was forgotten, or thought worth forgetting, like equalising with the rope(s), chaining runners, or even trusting just two, or even one anchor point, the rule of 3, and the equalisation often leading to anchor builders having their brains scrambled, trying to tick all the boxes, like they’re being assessed by some mountain God almighty, when throwing the rope around a chockstone was all they needed to do. Maybe we need to take a page out of Ghost Dog’s book, and “stick with the ancient ways”.

Now we get to the bit about girth hitching (or lark’s footing or cow hitching slings), by which we eliminate the overhand knot used to create a masterpoint in a cordelette, equalette, or equalised sling (but not a quad, as this is designed to give you a self-adjusting masterpoint). The reason this is a relatively new thing is not that climbers in the past were backward, but that perhaps the technique had to wait for technology to catch up, that we now have slings thin enough to do this. In the past, even a state-of-the-art 13 mm Dyneema sling of the 90s would create quite a bulky knot in the crook of a locking karabiner with just a two-point anchor, let alone three or four. Even 7 mm cord gives you a much bulkier knot around the crook of the karabiner, something that may give you a stronger, more equalised matrix, but might compromise the karabiner, applying odd forces on the gate that a normal overhand does not.

I think it’s also worth considering the underlying truth of why a girth hitch is better than an overhand on a bight, that the girth hitch is easy to untie after loading, unlike an overhand. Anyone who has used the overhand method knows this isn’t really true, that even a really heavily loaded sling and cord can be easily untied by hand, yes, it might take you 20 seconds, rather than 5 seconds, but there are also advantages of the overhand method over the girth hitch, as this gives you an extra closed loop to clip into between the masterpoint and the ‘shelf’ above.

The real advantage of the girth hitch method is that it gives you marginally more control when making that final adjustment to the masterpoint knot, something that can be lost when turning the end loops into an overhand. Any slight deviation of unequalness in your sling should not be a big problem when using 7 mm cord, which is slightly dynamic, and will self-equalise, but will affect Dyneema slings, which are super static. But, if you consider how things used to be done, really, we’re moving away from the material reality of climbing and climbing theory, of possibility versus probability.

I know this is a long-winded reply, but I suppose what I’m saying is girth hitching your anchor sling or cord is the best method, as are all the others. Perhaps at X belay, a girth-hitched sling off two bolts will not only give you the most effectively equalised belay, but also a belay of equal strength, simplicity and speed. Using a 7 mm cordelette could well give you a stronger belay, but it will not be as simple, or fast to build or take apart. You could just use your ropes, which would be the strongest, simplest and most dynamic method, but if you need to swap ends with your partner, you’ll lose points.

So, there is no single “way” to do anything, rather, it’s about mastering (or at least understanding) as many ways as possible, so you can apply the method you, and your partner(s), feel most comfortable using.

People are reluctant to use a girth hitch master point, because they fear it can slip out if the sling is cut on one side. There are a couple videos showing that dyneema slings will slip under a constant load of 5-7kN, which of course is not similar to a short duration shock from a fall, but that is the most common argument against it. The same goes for a clove hitch masterpoint.

I mostly use a girth hitch masterpoint on 2 pieces/bolts, and a bowline on a bight for vertical anchors (ENSA rec), but most people seem to prefer an overhand knot, and I still use an overhand for 3+ pieces with a longer sling (or clove 2 pieces, clip the 3rd, girth hitch the masterpoint). I sometimes got comments from other climbers about the girth hitch. It's a bit strange to me that the ENSA now teaches guides to belay with microtraxions but not to use a girth hitch masterpoint ? But it seems more popular in the UK and Germany.

I'm a great believer in 'So, there is no single “way” to do anything...' thats why as a Uk climber I startered pottling around these US fora to get expossed to a variety of 'ways'. As you never know when you might encounter a situation where something a bit different is useful.

The 'girth hitch anchor' is something I recently tried out having been convienced that its up to task and I can see its merits but suspect I'll probably stick with the old overhand knot when using slings. Not because I think its vastly superior but as I'm used to it and comfortable with it. When lead swinging I much prefer using the rope any way especially as I tend to potter around on relativly easy stuff these days (currently trying to work my way through Steves Broadbent's Mountain Rock is my level of ambition at the momment   ) where I can typically find 2 bomber placements and as I use 2 ropes can just attach 1 rope to each bomber.

I like the girth hitch master point because it is quick, easy and reasonably secure.  

I think the climbing world is slowing coming to the conclusion that equalization is not necessary with decent pro but limiting extension is very desirable.  Most experiments show that equalization is not very well equalized and so not worth the effort.  If your anchor is build on top of poor pro equalization may or may not help but is better than not equalization.  However finding a different anchor pro even if moving to another position is the go to solution in this situation (if at all possible).  Some guiding associations have explicitly said that 2 good bolts no longer need to be equalized merely connected so to be redundant.  This change was to enable lead belay off the anchor.

When I started climbing in the late 1970, anchors of 3 pieces where the standard however one of those 3 pieces was to prevent an upward pull by a leader fall on the next pitch from pulling out the rest of the anchor.  Now days the 3 piece anchor are generally build for a downward force.  Fortunately more and more anchors are bolted which are omni-directional.  

I am very much in the many ways to do something camp and find new climber's desire for the "one" method mildly annoying. 

We had soft 5/8th and half inch tubular tape in the 70's and the testing system hasn't changed ever.

HowNot2 on girth and clove hitch master points

Please correct me if I am wrong—and I think there is a HowNot2 video that addresses this (though not the one above)… people have mentioned the worry that the girth hitch anchor could slip if one arm is cut, say, by rockfall, and I believe HowNot2 demonstrated that the slipping tendency was significantly reduced if a twist was put in one of the slings (a la sliding x) before making the girth hitch over the biner. Not sure if I explained it that well so maybe someone knows which HowNot2 video did that test. 

Daniel Joderwrote:

Please correct me if I am wrong—and I think there is a HowNot2 video that addresses this (though not the one above)… people have mentioned the worry that the girth hitch anchor could slip if one arm is cut, say, by rockfall, and I believe HowNot2 demonstrated that the slipping tendency was significantly reduced if a twist was put in one of the slings (a la sliding x) before making the girth hitch over the biner. Not sure if I explained it that well so maybe someone knows which HowNot2 video did that test. 

I can't put my finger on a HowNot2 vid, but maybe you were thinking of this one (twist demonstrated at 2:50): https://youtu.be/dgHlAlucRvc?si=Pa23NhTtQI6ekvnw

This current generation of climbers are the masters of baffling themselves with bullshit that simply doesn't matter.

Clove hitch master v. girth hitch v twisted girth? Do you genuinely think you are going to have one half of your anchor sling cut while simultaneously loading it continuously and severe enough to cause your clove to slip to failure?

This has never happened in the history of climbing. 

You will more likely die of altitude sickness, lightning, hypothermia, direct rockfall or avalanche, loose rock causing falls, regular leader falls, clipping draws wrong, ropes getting cut during falls, snow bridges collapsing, getting lost, your partner abandoning you, darkness and your headlamp dying, rappel anchor failing or other rappelling accidents, bees/wasps/spiders/snakes/ticks/snails/mosquitos, traffic accidents in the mountains, amoebic dysentery, not using a condom or rabid crag dog bites than this sling cutting thing ever happening. AND if it did you would be the new unluckiest human in existence who essentially was just killed by a falling meteor which hasn't happened since 1888 of the common era when the only such instance was apparently documented in Iraq. I bet his cousin Bapu actually did it in a love triangle failure but that's another death triangle lol and that's another thread.

Beware meteors you noobs! FFS! 

It's technically possible but statistically beyond improbable.

Get strong anchors and tie yourself to them in a redundant fashion as long as the anchors are STRONG. The rest is people selling you the lastest "belay-o-matic" bullshit or their podcast.

No knock on young Andy who means well!

:P

hillbilly hijinkswrote:

This current generation of climbers are the masters of baffling themselves with bullshit that simply doesn't matter.

Clove hitch master v. girth hitch v twisted girth? Do you genuinely think you are going to have one half of your anchor sling cut while simultaneously loading it continuously and severe enough to cause your clove to slip to failure?

This has never happened in the history of climbing. 

You will more likely die of altitude sickness, lightning, hypothermia, direct rockfall or avalanche, loose rock causing falls, regular leader falls, clipping draws wrong, ropes getting cut during falls, snow bridges collapsing, getting lost, your partner abandoning you, darkness and your headlamp dying, rappel anchor failing, bees/wasps/spiders/snakes, traffic accidents, amoebic dysentery, not using a condom or rabid crag dog bites than this ever happening AND if it did you would be the new unluckiest human in existence who essentially was just killed by a meteor which hasn't happened since 1888 of the common era when the only such thing was apparently documented. I bet his cousin bhapu actually did it but that's another thread.

Beware meteors you noobs! FFS! It's technically possible but statistically beyond improbable.

Get strong anchors and tie yourself to them in a redundant fashion. The rest is people selling you the lastest "belay-o-matic" bullshit or their podcast.

:P

There are those on this forum who do, indeed, fear the remotest of contingencies, to the point where you wonder how they get themselves out of bed in the morning.  When advised that the chances of all but one leg of an anchor being cut by a massive rockfall that still somehow leaves both climbers and the lead line intact is so slim as to not be worth fussing about, they assault you with charts and graphs.  It takes all sorts, I guess.

I prefer the girth-hitch masterpoint, on rare occasions when I build a belay that way, for hauling or toproping perhaps.  For normal multipitch, clove hitches to two or three pieces have always worked pretty good.

climber patwrote:

I think the climbing world is slowing coming to the conclusion that equalization is not necessary with decent pro but limiting extension is very desirable.  

Not sure what "slowly coming to the conclusion " means???, but this was recognized by climbers before anybody started fxxning around with equalization. I can say with absolute accuracy that those of us who started the AMGA guides certification program in the early 90's placed priority on redundancy and No Extension. 

Most experiments show that equalization is not very well equalized and so not worth the effort.  If your anchor is build on top of poor pro equalization may or may not help but is better than not equalization.  However finding a different anchor pro even if moving to another position is the go to solution in this situation (if at all possible).  Some guiding associations have explicitly said that 2 good bolts no longer need to be equalized merely connected so to be redundant.  This change was to enable lead belay off the anchor.

What "guiding associations"? The establishment of, and insatiable hunger for rules, falls short of the task. Different situations, of which there are quite a few, suggest (demand?) different strategies and anchor requirements. 

When I started climbing in the late 1970, anchors of 3 pieces where the standard however one of those 3 pieces was to prevent an upward pull by a leader fall on the next pitch from pulling out the rest of the anchor.  Now days the 3 piece anchor are generally build for a downward force.

Maybe Mr. Pat and I are more on the same page than I thought. Again,  the anchor requirements are situationally dependent. 

I am very much in the many ways to do something camp and find new climber's desire for the "one" method mildly annoying. 

The proliferation of methods that all produce functionally the same result is a guise. It's filling up peoples brains while avoiding the more-difficult-to-teach assessment and judgment parts of the equation. People don't have the opportunity to learn those things because the methods of the past that taught such things has been mostly eliminated from the curriculum. Amongst other things. 

Real TRADitional climbing ain't Disneyland. But it's headed that way. 

At Andy: so many things in your OP.

We were using "quick draws" in Yosemite in the mid 70's. Doubled 1" tubular webbing slings, hand tied, with two carabiners. And we called them quick draws. Someone then came up with the idea of tripling them to create "alpine draws", which we didn't call them. Then someone made them (alpine draws) up with hand tied 9/16 supertape.

As for the "American Triangle", we didn't just clip the slings for a belay anchor. We clipped the bolts directly. This sometimes necessitated removing some tat. Maybe, if the belay stance was excellent and a secure braced position for a hip belay was present,  we might skip the tat removal and just clip the slings, to secure the braced position. This is the kind of stuff that is absent from today's curriculum. But when I went through the Canadian guides training in the 80's, you had better have shown up knowing all kinds of this type stuff. You were expected to be good at braced hip and shoulder belays, know when you needed and didn't need an anchor, how much of an anchor, and similar things. As in show up with those skills. They didn't teach them. But they DID teach what is now called "guide mode"(gotta have a name for every little thing), cordelette anchor construction (except no one called it a cordelette), all the various "IMPROVISED" rescue methods,  short roping, etc.

A 7mm cordelette is not, IMHO (or not so humble), overkill.

Grant Watsonwrote:

I can't put my finger on a HowNot2 vid, but maybe you were thinking of this one (twist demonstrated at 2:50): https://youtu.be/dgHlAlucRvc?si=Pa23NhTtQI6ekvnw

Yeah, Grant, I guess that’s the video I saw. Thanks. There’s apparently a big difference in potential slippage between adding in a “magic x” into the girth hitch master point and not doing so. Since it only takes one second longer to add it in, I always do so on those few occasions when I use this system.

I have to also say that I completely agree with what hillbilly said about what is more likely to kill you and we should certainly worry about things in their order of probability. Sometimes, though, weird things happen and if I can make something significantly safer with essentially no time loss, I’ll do it.

BTW, I do recall an accident, I think in Little Cottonwood Canyon in Utah (?), in which one leg of their multipitch belay anchor was indeed cut by rockfall—a one in a million situation; they won the lottery. Maybe someone with a better memory can dredge up the report.

Oh, one more thing about the video Grant linked above. Be wary about using a ring (vice a carabiner) to make the girth hitch master point. Yes, as the video points out, the smoothness of a ring increases its slippage potential… but more importantly, if you haven’t cinched down the sling onto the ring and happen to clip in to the upper part of the ring rather than the lower part, the ring comes out completely free… again, someone can probably find the accident report of the two alpine climbers who tragically lost their lives when this happened. I guess it could happen with a carabiner as well but much less likely. 

Eric Craigwrote:

Not sure what "slowly coming to the conclusion " means???, but this was recognized by climbers before anybody started fxxning around with equalization. I can say with absolute accuracy that those of us who started the AMGA guides certification program in the early 90's placed priority on redundancy and No Extension. 

Remember SERENE? Solid, Equalized, Redundant, Efficient, and No Extension.  Note that Equalized come 2nd in the list.  No Extension comes last.  The order was interpreted by many beginners as important.  Climber's in my location will bitch if you anchor is not SERENE in every aspect, never mind that their equalized anchor never is equalized. Sadly they often skip the Solid requirement.  Twice I was able to pull hard enough on an anchor to cause failure.   In my view Solid is the only really important one.  The professional climbing and guiding community did a poor job of passing along that No Extension should be 2nd to the public.  The vast majority of climbers are not guides and learn from mentors and reading books and relatively recently watching youtube videos. 

What "guiding associations"? The establishment of, and insatiable hunger for rules, falls short of the task. Different situations, of which there are quite a few, suggest (demand?) different strategies and anchor requirements. 

I remember a video with the ACMG (Canadian) discussing this precise issue.  That video was very well done.   I think the German association and probably most of the European associations have  thought about it.  I don't know what any of the associations are actually teaching today.  The AMGA seemed behind the curve when I was interested in this topic which was about 10 years ago.  Today they all probably they teach buy an Edelrid Ohm.  :).   Lead belay off the anchor is or was a bigger deal over there.

Maybe Mr. Pat and I are more on the same page than I thought. Again,  the anchor requirements are situationally dependent. 

The proliferation of methods that all produce functionally the same result is a guise. It's filling up peoples brains while avoiding the more-difficult-to-teach assessment and judgment parts of the equation. People don't have the opportunity to learn those things because the methods of the past that taught such things has been mostly eliminated from the curriculum. Amongst other things. 

Real TRADitional climbing ain't Disneyland. But it's headed that way. 

My problem with the One and Only One Way attitude new climbers have is many of them are not learning the skills to evaluate systems and get very upset when the see something they do not recognize.  One reason to have multiple methods to accomplish essentially the same thing it to be able to deal with various situations.  If you must have a sling or two to build an anchor what do you do when you don't have a sling when you get to the end of a pitch.    

The neumonic SRENE was preceded by RENE. Neither was my invention,  but I was present for both of their respective introductions. And for much of they represent. Some of that I am responsible for. So I know were the emphasis lies. RNEE is a poor neumonic. 

The AMGA was way behind the curve in the 1980's. The first attempt at introducing these concepts and methods was made by Antoine Savelli. But, it didn't go very far. By the late 80's the AMGA was developing a cohesive group to address guides training and certification. The topics at hand here were reintroduced, and caught on, because of the new seriousness of the AMGA. RENE, and then SRENE were coined by Alan Jolley and Marc Chauvin, I believe. Based on a recent conversation with a UK UIAGM guide, those neumonics have been in use a long time there, and are indeed of US origin. 

Overall yes, the US was behind the curve, but US guides have made contributions to the International guiding community. Surely a lot more than I am aware of, as I literally dissapeared from guiding about 1996. 

Pat: I agree with your last paragraph. Probably a lot more too. I think we are beating similar drums. I just happen to have been involved in part of the actual history. 

Loic Prstwrote:

People are reluctant to use a girth hitch master point, because they fear it can slip out if the sling is cut on one side. There are a couple videos showing that dyneema slings will slip under a constant load of 5-7kN, which of course is not similar to a short duration shock from a fall, but that is the most common argument against it. The same goes for a clove hitch masterpoint.

I mostly use a girth hitch masterpoint on 2 pieces/bolts, and a bowline on a bight for vertical anchors (ENSA rec), but most people seem to prefer an overhand knot, and I still use an overhand for 3+ pieces with a longer sling (or clove 2 pieces, clip the 3rd, girth hitch the masterpoint). I sometimes got comments from other climbers about the girth hitch. It's a bit strange to me that the ENSA now teaches guides to belay with microtraxions but not to use a girth hitch masterpoint ? But it seems more popular in the UK and Germany.

Yes, belaying with a Microtraxion is really odd, as all you need is a bit of slack to come into the system, which is easy when guiding two people, and you end up with some bad outcomes. A lot of guiding and general alpine climbing is about cutting corners that no normal climber would dare cut. I suppose, when you consider a guide short roping someone they've never met on steep icy ground, it's all smoke a mirrors really. 

hillbilly hijinkswrote:

This current generation of climbers are the masters of baffling themselves with bullshit that simply doesn't matter.

Clove hitch master v. girth hitch v twisted girth? Do you genuinely think you are going to have one half of your anchor sling cut while simultaneously loading it continuously and severe enough to cause your clove to slip to failure?

This has never happened in the history of climbing. 

You will more likely die of altitude sickness, lightning, hypothermia, direct rockfall or avalanche, loose rock causing falls, regular leader falls, clipping draws wrong, ropes getting cut during falls, snow bridges collapsing, getting lost, your partner abandoning you, darkness and your headlamp dying, rappel anchor failing or other rappelling accidents, bees/wasps/spiders/snakes/ticks/snails/mosquitos, traffic accidents in the mountains, amoebic dysentery, not using a condom or rabid crag dog bites than this sling cutting thing ever happening AND if it did you would be the new unluckiest human in existence who essentially was just killed by a falling meteor which hasn't happened since 1888 of the common era when the only such instance was apparently documented in Iraq. I bet his cousin Bapu actually did it in a love triangle failure but that's another death triangle lol and that's another thread.

Beware meteors you noobs! FFS! 

It's technically possible but statistically beyond improbable.

Get strong anchors and tie yourself to them in a redundant fashion as long as the anchors are STRONG. The rest is people selling you the lastest "belay-o-matic" bullshit or their podcast.

No knock on young Andy who means well!

:P

Agreed. I think it's worth teaching young climbers the difference between probability and possibility, as a lot of theory impedes practice. Much of this comes from the fact a bunch of climbers cannot go climbing as much as they want, where all these things become clearer, and so chase the rabbit on forums like this. 

At Andy, again: so I reread most of your 2 part OP. I realize that you are a highly regarded figure here on MP, an author,  accomplished climber,  etc. But really????? The cordelette is anything but a specialized tool!! It's greatest virtue is it's  versatility. Which unfortunately is clearly forgotten. Your depiction of how guides use them is a very narrow perspective. 

I don't know much about how big wall climbs are done elsewhere,  or even how people outside the groups I climbed with in Yosemite from 1973 to 1994, but your depictions of how (Americans?) conduct certain aspects of their big wall climbs is about 100% wrong. Based on my personal experience,  those years. Guess maybe extend those years a bit to include my Zion climbs. 

Nothing wrong in my opinion with placing 2 good pieces and tying into them with one each of my half ropes, done it many times. People don't do that now because they think they need a "master point" to belay "guide mode".

Personally, I have never used a girth hitch master point anchor. I don't have any real problem with it. I UNDERSTAND it, so I wouldn't need to practice it in order to properly assemble it, should it ever become the best option for me. It's no big deal. But I don't carry locking pearabiners, because I don't normally use a Munter hitch. Even though I have. A lot. While guiding. 2 cordelettes,  2 pearabiners. Good, effective,  simple  system. But I haven't guided for over a quarter century. 

My cordelettes,  when I carry them, are 14-15 feet long. Not 7 meters. That's crazy.

Eric Craigwrote:

At Andy, again: so I reread most of your 2 part OP. I realize that you are a highly regarded figure here on MP, an author,  accomplished climber,  etc. But really????? The cordelette is anything but a specialized tool!! It's greatest virtue is it's  versatility. Which unfortunately is clearly forgotten. Your depiction of how guides use them is a very narrow perspective. 

I don't know much about how big wall climbs are done elsewhere,  or even how people outside the groups I climbed with in Yosemite from 1973 to 1994, but your depictions of how (Americans?) conduct certain aspects of their big wall climbs is about 100% wrong. Based on my personal experience,  those years. Guess maybe extend those years a bit to include my Zion climbs. 

Nothing wrong in my opinion with placing 2 good pieces and tying into them with one each of my half ropes, done it many times. People don't do that now because they think they need a "master point" to belay "guide mode".

Personally, I have never used a girth hitch master point anchor. I don't have any real problem with it. I UNDERSTAND it, so I wouldn't need to practice it in order to properly assemble it, should it ever become the best option for me. It's no big deal. But I don't carry locking pearabiners, because I don't normally use a Munter hitch. Even though I have. A lot. While guiding. 2 cordelettes,  2 pearabiners. Good, effective,  simple  system. But I haven't guided for over a quarter century. 

My cordelettes,  when I carry them, are 14-15 feet long. Not 7 meters. That's crazy.

I'm talking about how when cordelettes first began to appear, they were only used by guides, so very specialized, but are mainstream now, the same as how mono points and curved tools were for M10 climbers, but are now used by WI1 climbers. 

I don't know anything about guiding.

But as far as cordelettes and mainstream climbing goes here in America, we can "thank" John Long for their proliferation. 

Never been my thing. I never once went, gee, if only I'd brought a cordelette. 

Also never felt the the need to girth hitch a master point. But others should feel free to girth that shit! With a cordellette if you can!!