Why not make a "soft catch" mode for Grigris for potential factor 2 falls?

Dave K wrote:

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/119125903/burnout

As for me, you are right. I'm not even in your league. Not even good enough to put 5.13 on my ToDo list.

Seriously though, you've got some major insecurities. That's a risk a soft catch is never going to mitigate.

Seriously, this is not meant to be insulting, but an honest question. What is your trad climbing experience outside of CA? There are plenty of areas with overhanging trad climbs in the 5.7-low11 range so we’re not talking outrageously hard trad climbs. I agree that I didn’t come across these very often in CA, someplace I’ve also climbed a fair amount. But around here in TN, NC, and WV,  we’ve got plenty of short, single pitch, overhanging trad climbs. For the most part, I don’t belay differently on these route just on the basis of whether the protection are bolts or gear.

I can only think of one time outside I did a sort of soft catch, with an almost equal weight partner (about 15 pounds heavier). I sat into the rope to shorten it, then let the rope, when it went taut, stand me back up. A shortened soft catch. But, I could see the fall, and had time to hunker. Most of the time, you just get caught, sometimes a soft catch by default.

What happens far more often? I've not had to do so yet, but I often have the desperate move to shorten the fall in mind, hard catch is better than groundfall. A lot of stuff locally is groundfall territory for several bolts. Sucks, but it is what it is. So, grab tight, lean back hard, or step off the little column I'm on.

Or not. If my lead's placing gear I sure don't want to yank out that bottom piece! All you get on gear is a very watchful catch by a belayer who sweats until you have a bunch of stuff in, lol! I do worry more, belaying trad than sport. More possibility for surprises, I guess, plus it's entirely up to the judgement of the lead. I have to put a lot more trust in my partners then, so that's also when I'm pickier who I partner with. 

Best, Helen

As time has gone by, I’ve seen more and more people willing to fall more often. Sport and gym climbing have bred people who tend to be willing to fall more, and who catch more falls, leading to a higher appreciation for softer catches. Some of this has bled over into harder trad climbing. The downside has been maybe more people falling and belaying inappropriately because they treat everything like a gym, and perhaps don’t always give the appropriate amount of respect to outdoor climbing.The upside is that good belayers have gotten better because they get more experience catching real falls, and stronger sport climbers are also helping to push trad grades too.

Kevin Mokracek wrote: Isn’t the soft catch a relatively new technique?  I’ve been climbing for 40 years and only started hearing people whine about spiking and soft catches in the last 8-10 years maybe?   Did it grow out of the gym or tightly bolted sport climbs?    I never heard anyone crying about spiking at Josh or Suicide, I said Suicide because I can’t spell Taquits.   

It's a wonder you ever survived, Kevin.

csproul wrote:

Seriously, this is not meant to be insulting, but an honest question. What is your trad climbing experience outside of CA? There are plenty of areas with overhanging trad climbs in the 5.7-low11 range so we’re not talking outrageously hard trad climbs. I agree that I didn’t come across these very often in CA, someplace I’ve also climbed a fair amount. But around here in TN, NC, and WV,  we’ve got plenty of short, single pitch, overhanging trad climbs. For the most part, I don’t belay differently on these route just on the basis of whether the protection are bolts or gear.

Great point, Csproul. You're correct that overhanging trad is fairly uncommon in CA. But without going back through 10 pages(!) of this, did someone ever say that you should NOT give a soft catch on overhanging terrain? I thought that is the one thing that all of us seem to agree on, that a "real" soft catch is a technique to reduce the swing and velocity so a run-out climber on overhanging terrain doesn't "spike" back into the wall? I don't think that's controversial, whether on sport or trad.

I'm still dying to see video of Artem using ninja "soft catch" techniques to push someone out and around a ledge they were otherwise going to hit. That totally sounds like Petzl "Best Belayer" stuff. 

Guys this is page 10! We have been arguing straight for 10 WHOLE PAGES!! lets just accept that this is a controversial subject and no matter what way you do it there will be dangers and people will say "NEVER LET THIS PERSON BELAY YOU". 

Andrew Rice wrote:

Great point, Csproul. You're correct that overhanging trad is fairly uncommon in CA. But without going back through 10 pages(!) of this, did someone ever say that you should NOT give a soft catch on overhanging terrain? I thought that is the one thing that all of us seem to agree on, that a "real" soft catch is a technique to reduce the swing and velocity so a run-out climber on overhanging terrain doesn't "spike" back into the wall? I don't think that's controversial, whether on sport or trad.

I'm still dying to see video of Artem using ninja "soft catch" techniques to push someone out and around a ledge they were otherwise going to hit. That totally sounds like Petzl "Best Belayer" stuff. 

Yes, it was more of a response to a post saying the technique was rarely applied to trad climbing. Just pointing out that overhanging trad climbs are a thing, in case it wasn’t obvious.

I have definitely had belayers intentionally drop me past a ledge. Whether they jumped or purposely left out more slack, I can’t say. But they definitely recognized that my fall with a tighter belay was going to swing me right into a ledge unless they did something about it. Had the same happen with falls from above an overhang too, with the belayer recognizing that they need to lengthen the fall to keep you from swinging into an overhang. There’s nothing really magical ninja about it, just a good partner and belayer.

On the topic of soft catches as a new technique (and to keep pushing this thread toward the goal of 15 pages)...

I don’t remember the term being used much BITD (1970s). But, we did talk about the “dynamic belay” which, with the Munter or the body belay—and even to a degree with the “very advanced“ (!) Sticht plate—would almost automatically happen. The idea of the dynamic belay, as I was taught was to reduce the fall forces on potentially marginal trad protection as well as to reduce the forces acting on the climber. Of course, judgement was required as you also needed to make sure your leader didn’t hit any ledges on the way down. And, of course, the overriding principle back then was “the leader shall not fall”. (Someone with a copy...Maybe Robbins’ “Rockcraft” books discuss the dynamic belay???)

Along with the new fall ethic with sport climbing, it seems likely that the advent of modern belay devices (that can lock off the rope almost instantaneously) had some influence in “soft catches” becoming a thing.

csproul wrote:

Yes, it was more of a response to a post saying the technique was rarely applied to trad climbing. Just pointing out that overhanging trad climbs are a thing, in case it wasn’t obvious.

I have definitely had belayers intentionally drop me past a ledge. Whether they jumped or purposely left out more slack, I can’t say. But they definitely recognized that my fall with a tighter belay was going to swing me right into a ledge unless they did something about it. There’s nothing really magical ninja about it, just a good partner and belayer.

I think maybe we have different definitions of a "ledge." Or maybe you push off really hard when you fall? I've had belayers drop me past an overhang so I didn't swing into it and smash my head but that's hardly a ledge. But if I'm falling straight down (as gravity typically works after the initial couple feet) how does more distance or rope get you AROUND something in the fall line? 

Andrew Rice wrote:

I think maybe we have different definitions of a "ledge." Or maybe you push off really hard when you fall? I've had belayers drop me past an overhang so I didn't swing into it and smash my head but that's hardly a ledge. But if I'm falling straight down (as gravity typically works after the initial couple feet) how does more distance or rope get you AROUND something in the fall line? 

Yes you have to already be falling past whatever it is you need to clear, be it small ledge or overhang. I get that your belayer can’t magically help you fall farther away from the obstacle. But their tension on the rope certainly can pull you closer to the object you are trying to miss,  you are no longer falling straight down once the rope starts coming tighter. Works the same with a ledge as it does an overhang. 

Thinking about this....

Before grigri type devices? Wouldn't it be pretty difficult to deliver a hard catch? I'm thinking that would be drastic, wrapping the rope, or stomping on it, using all the weight you can throw if you wanted to shorten a whipper asap??? That running backwards thing...

I'm also guessing there were less giant mismatches in weights, BITD, but I could be wrong.

I usually use an ATC (yeah, yeah, everyone's gonna die) and with slippage, me being lighter, etc, a soft catch simply happens. But, as I said, I've thought about needing a fast hard catch way more often than soft! Really glad it hasn't been needed so far.

Best, Helen

Kevin Mokracek wrote: Isn’t the soft catch a relatively new technique?  I’ve been climbing for 40 years and only started hearing people whine about spiking and soft catches in the last 8-10 years maybe?   Did it grow out of the gym or tightly bolted sport climbs?    I never heard anyone crying about spiking at Josh or Suicide, I said Suicide because I can’t spell Taquits.   

The "soft catch" is a newish name for an old concept, What's new is the jumping part.  Actually, the jump belay used to be referred to as a dynamic belay, but the name has changed to "soft catch"  to denote the hoped-for outcome rather than the method used to achieve it.  The dynamic belay is not a new concept, having been proposed, analyzed and studied in the late 1940's (R. M. Leonard and A. Wexler, Belaying the Leader, Sierra Club Bulletin 31 (December 1946), 68--90. ) Through the 50's and 60's, most climbers learned and practiced the techniques described by Leonard and Wexler, which involved allowing a certain amount of rope to slide through the (hip) belay under tension.  The ideal amount of rope to run was computed (from the same differential equations that gave us the concept of fall factor) and used as a practice parameter, so people had a way to know if their actions were on target.

Rope design got better and better and, at the same time, it became clear that even for experienced people who had practiced, variations in individual performance made dynamic belay advantages hit or miss.  The dynamic belay and belay practice in general faded from the scene along with the hip belay as belay gadgets (and the Munter) took over.  Even so, the dynamic belay for severe loads survived, because the gadgets/Munter all allowed the rope to slip when the load got high enough, and at that point the belay returned to its dynamic roots.  The difference was that there was no longer any information about appropriate amounts of slack to release, as the inconsistent results of practiced belayers suggested that "just hang on as hard as you can" was as effective as anything more nuanced.

Analyses by the Italian Alpine Club  revealed that the device-mediated dynamic belay actually has two phases.  The first phase, which they called "inertial," had to do with fall-energy absorbtion due to friction in the device/Munter as the brake hand was pulled to the device.  The second stage, after the brake hand had collided with the device/Munter, involved rope running under resistance through both the device and the brake hand.  Subsequent testing, which you can find videos of with a little searching, revealed that even for factor 2 falls, the inertial phase can be enough, meaning that for such arrests the rope doesn't run through the belayer's hands.  Since you can have a dynamic belay without the rope running through the belayer's hands, most climbers using tube-style devices were giving dynamic belays for big falls without realizing it, in other words soft catches were a regular feature of belaying.

The introduction of the Grigri changed things and ushured in the modern age of "soft catches."  The absence of any practical slippage in a Grigri (at least until loads exceed an almost unachievable 7 kN) meant that the dynamic effects of the inertial phase were gone, with no replacement available in terms of rope running under tension.  My guess is that the "soft catch" grew out of the observation that belayers were often lifted anyway, so why not initiate that motion even when the loads aren't sufficient by themselves.

The dynamic belay could conceivably return, as recent analyses by the French institution ENSA have shown that a dynamic belay via a Munter on an anchor gives a better soft catch than the jump method.  (It would be amusing if the jump belayers suddenly found themselves the "old crusties" in the face of a new technique.)  Of course, for this to catch on in any meaningful way, gyms and sport climbs would have to be equipped with eye-level bolt anchors at ground level for belaying.  I've seen a video of such an anchor in use on a very hard trad pitch in Europe, but the idea that such a thing would spread seems far-fetched for now.

Old lady H wrote:
I'm also guessing there were less giant mismatches in weights, BITD, but I could be wrong.

I'm sure Lynn gave John a lot of soft catches. 

Artem Vasilyev wrote:

Dave, you are very annoying to debate on the internet - your arguments are done in bad faith and you seem to be more concerned with misrepresenting another person's words and creating a "gotcha" moment, then to try to make a salient point and see how it holds up to the argument of somebody who has a different opinion on the matter. You seem to triple down on this when it's clear that you are wrong. I'm probably a dumbass because I keep engaging in spite of this. 

Just show us the ledge-passing trick Artem. That's what we all want.

Andrew Rice wrote:

Just show us the ledge-passing trick Artem. That's what we all want.

It's really quite simple. At the very advanced level Artem is playing, any foot hold bigger than half an inch is called a ledge. "Flying by" a 0.5" ledge is quite doable with some soft catch.

rgold wrote:
The dynamic belay could conceivably return, as recent analyses by the French institution ENSA have shown that a dynamic belay via a Munter on an anchor gives a better soft catch than the jump method.  (It would be amusing if the jump belayers suddenly found themselves the "old crusties" in the face of a new technique.)  Of course, for this to catch on in any meaningful way, gyms and sport climbs would have to be equipped with eye-level bolt anchors at ground level for belaying.  I've seen a video of such an anchor in use on a very hard trad pitch in Europe, but the idea that such a thing would spread seems far-fetched for now.

Is there any reason why a Munter cannot be attached to a belay biner on your harness? Maybe the rope slippage is so long that the break hand always will be sucked into the Munter?  I can easily see the ultimate combo: Jump with a Munter!

Patrik wrote:

Is there any reason why a Munter cannot be attached to a belay biner on your harness? Maybe the rope slippage is so long that the break hand always will be sucked into the Munter?  I can easily see the ultimate combo: Jump with a Munter!

It's been used on the harness since harnesses were invented.

Attach an inverted autobelay at the base of each route and at each station of a multi-pitch and lead off of that - problem solved.