Dan Osman: Genuine Bad Ass or Reckless Madman

Buff Johnson wrote: Because the adventure climber is living through life's free expression, education/experience, & talent. The addict is just existing, a waste of life at that, and offers nothing but despair to the world around them.

Yes, read William Burroghs 'Junkie' for a good read on the life of a heroin user. Pretty depressing stuff.

This story posted by John Middendorf (sp?) the founder of A5 on rec.climbing back in 1998 says a lot:

groups.google.com/group/rec…

Buff Johnson wrote: Because the adventure climber is living through life's free expression, education/experience, & talent. The addict is just existing, a waste of life at that, and offers nothing but despair to the world around them.

So then the measure is subjective? I agree, I was fishing for a justification for the selfishness of drug use to parallel the selfishness of extreme risk in sport, but couldn't come up with one myself, other than pure hedonism. Another question: Was there an element of genius in Osman's exploits, was he visionary in any way, or was he just thinking up really dangerous things to see what he could get away with?

I would say visionary -- the amount of effort put into what he did as far as the rigging and falls were unparalleled. I don't think to this day, we have seen anything like what he set out for. I thought he did more than the "Jackass Stunt" -- where if you walked away, you'd probably say that might have looked cool but that was a stupid idea; with the visionary, it'd be more like, we pulled it off but we knew we had a good chance, it was just a matter of execution. Is something like NASA going to the Moon any different?

There would be exceptions to the previous addict posting -- the uneducated dropout that runs a multi-billion corp; the addict that puts out Pulitzer prized material, (I would say Nobel, but...); the civil rights or humanitarian activist that has some self-destruct pattern -- look at the House, MD example, saving lives through Vicadin, etc.

some folks have drawn these arbitrary lines of risk tolerance that they seem to think everyone should abide by. there's risk associated with everything in life.

we take a risk when we cross the street. would you call someone reckless, selfish, and irresponsible because he chose to cross a street right as the driver of an approaching car was distracted and failed to see the red light? what if he left a family behind?

we're all aware of the risk but decide it is manageable and that the thrill we get by experiencing life beyond the block we live on is worth the risk. and, that poor guy, died due to an unfortunate accident.

would you call a free-soloist reckless, selfish, and irresponsible because he chose to climb on the day when that key hold broke away, causing him to fall?

i doubt i'll ever free-solo a climb at a level that is even remotely near the top of my climbing ability. but, i've climbed 5.4 trad routes with 40-50 ft runouts and plenty of ledges below that would make a fall extremely dangerous and probably fatal. would you have called me irresponsible if i'd done that on a day when rock fall hit my hand, knocked me off the route, and i fell to my death?

or, since i was doing something that falls within your personal level of risk tolerance, would you say i suffered an unfortunate accident doing something that was, otherwise, within my ability?

jmac wrote:JPVallone wrote: OSMAN WAS A RECKLESS BADASS LIVING HIS LIFE THE WAY HE WANTED AND VISIONED. I bet most of us don't even come close to living the life we vision. Dan saw it and did it. My hats off to him, and I will always enjoy watching the footage he left us. True, but did he ruin that chance for his daughter? Which is more important? I'm not saying he did or did not, just posing the question.

whether or not her chance is ruined will be the result of an infinite number of environmental variables. the death of her father is only one (albeit a very prominent one) of those variables. and, in our lifetimes, we're not likely to have the ability to isolate the result to one variable.

she may realize that her father died doing what he loved, embrace that, and live her life in the same way. or, she may develop a sense of resentment and go the opposite direction in her life. hopefully not but who knows?

only time will tell but, even then, we won't be able to truly say that her dad's death or any other one thing was the cause of the outcome.

Is something like NASA going to the Moon any different? There would be exceptions to the previous addict posting -- the uneducated dropout that runs a multi-billion corp; the addict that puts out Pulitzer prized material, (I would say Nobel, but...); the civil rights or humanitarian activist that has some self-destruct pattern -- look at the House, MD example, saving lives through Vicadin, etc.

The scope of new information and its hypothetical value to the rest of mankind would be a difference- and make it easier to justify the risk. With the drug use thing, it has to be the exception that supplies the example, no one picks up the needle/pipe to end up on a billboard on south Santa Fe, and the exceptions are excelling despite their use, not because of it. I guess another question might be is addiction (to risk, or drugs, or whatever) ever a positive thing, or is it always destructive (ultimately)? I think Dan Osman was an exceptional human being who pushed his personal limits as far as he possibly could (almost by definition). The uspide- he's incredibly inspirational and awe-inspiring. The downside- the loss of a bright light leaves us temporarily in darkness, especially his loved ones and friends.

I had a very lengthy discussion with a close friend of mine that grew up with the same crew Bachar climbed with and spent years as his friend. Being that close to him, you might think my friend would know at least something about John, and in fact he did glean quite a lot over the years.

But John was not the most accessible person and didn't indulge in hours of introspection with people, so a lot of these impressions got observed obliquely. My friend isn't done writing the piece yet, but it will get done and you might find it interesting to read as there will be parallels to other, elite athletes at the top of their game.

In any case, whatever the cause of these remembrance threads, it is one of the ways the living keep that lost person alive, so they are useful for that.

Dan Osman was a visionary, a bad ass, a reckless madman, a guy on another level. He lived life in a way very few people will and lived more in his years than most people ever will in their entire lives. I love his stuff, it is straight up amazing.

He is also a guy that put his own compulsion above a family he chose to have. If you haven't lost a parent you probably are clueless as to the effect on the child.

Its hard to say which weighs heavier on his measure as a man. It is subjective, no one is perfect.

Osman the man? I've got mixed feelings about Osman. As a part time adventurer myself, a guy like Osman is an inspiration, he can't be wrapped up in a tidy little box and classified. At least his lifestyle could be an inspiration. Being not dead might be better for his kid but it isn't as bad as some living parents are to their kids. No one is perfect.

Shades of grey all around.

I'm going to watch his tributes again, they are amazing.

Dan Osman was a great climber...
a great person (from all that is said about him)...

and an irresponsible parent. Anyone who choses to bring life onto the planet also needs to make a choice to be there for his kids/wife. Soloing with the knowledge that a simple mistake, a bad day, a random chance could end it all is irresponsible. I don't care if 5.15 is a walk in the park for the climber, soloing a 5.___- and saying that you are OK with the consequence of falling is stupid...

and people that make the decision are selfish. There can be no argument on that point.

A question I often ponder is if a deceased climber would have chosen a life more ordinary over death. I am betting Dan would have chosen the former. Unfortunately he was not able to just say no to his desires. He did not die because of a freak accident, he died because he chose to take a final jump verses checking his system as he would have normally done. If the NPS had not forced him to take down the Leaning Tower jump I am guessing he would still be with us today. He chose to take the final plunge vs just bagging it all and finding something new.

Many people require near death experiences to finally get them to change their lives. I bet Dan would have changed his if he had been given the chance.

matt davies wrote: Is it valid to mollify grieving friends of an OD by saying "They died doing what they loved". It sure seems tacky, to say the least, but isn't it true? Why don't we say this about the user, but say it repeatedly about climbers/adventures? Thoughts?

Personally, I don't like the "They died doing what they loved" statement. I don't know any climbers that love impacting talus at terminal velocity, freezing to death in a storm, or suffocating in an avalanche. You could say that they died shortly after doing what they loved, but I suspect few ever love dying.

I suppose it's a comfort to friends and family to say such a thing, but I worry about others using this sort of statement to justify their recklessness; i.e., "if I'm going to die, I'm going to die doing what I love." WRONG, you're going to die in a moment of complete terror, likely regretting the last several moments of your life, and wishing you could trade that last solo, base jump, or powder shot for many more years of "mundane" but safe cragging with family and friends.

I think it's sad that he left a little one behind that will never know her father. Selfish.

dude, seriously you are comparing crossing the street to premeditated soloing? c'mon, MAN UP and take some responsibility for your actions. also just be realistic and realize some things are more dangerous than other things. if you are going to solo or run it out at least have the balls to admit the shit is dangerous. otherwise stay home and stop pretending.

yes I would call a free soloist reckless and irresponsible if he fell due to a hold breaking...especially if he left a kid behind. with a rope on he only catches a bit of air and lives to tell about it.

yeah we get it, you can die sitting on the couch eating a steak, crossing the street, driving to the crag, hiking a mountain...all are LESS dangerous than free soloing or launching a world record roped free fall. plus no one is going to fault someone for crossing the f'ing street or driving around town. someone would question that he had to be up there jumping off cliffs or free soloing or whatever.

Dan Osman exploits were very imaginative and way more creative than any other climber I can think of. However, you really can't compare him to going TO THE MOON! please keep it in perspective.

I'm glad mention has been made of Osman's daughter. Osman was a badass, but he was also reckless...no judgement, just respect.

I would agree that maybe it was a little selfish that he did these things while having a daughter, but is it any different than a CEO who works through all his daughters school events and every important thing in her life? but still Dan-O was a bad-ass, I would recommend the book about him entitled "Fall of the Phantom Lord" its really good. Its discusses the psychology of why he did these things.

His dad always said "Beat your Phantom Lord" a.k.a. beat you biggest fear and falling was his biggest fear that's where taking the intentional falls came from. But i would say read the book its good.

jarthur wrote: Someone voices something against the norm, and you immediately call that person a troll? WTF?

the "troll?" basically said all climbers with family are selfish ass holes. I got the feeling from their post that they either don't have kids so that frees them up to be as selfish as they desire or they do not climb, therfore suggesting that they might be troll-tastic

My 2%; Dan knew the possibilities "the danger" that what he did could go bad. I think as a climber you can only focus entirely on your climbing and or same dangerous activity that you enjoy and it only. This was a very dangerous static fall that took alot of focus. Maybe his focus was hampered by being chased for quite some time by wardens, who were only doing their job. Dan wasn't crazy, maybe a little bold, and of course very good at what he loved. You don't have to be that extreme in any sport that you choose to do to be in danger of injury or death! Climb to live and live to climb! Not an arguement by any means, purely a statement! I think ( even though she won't see him physically) The climbing world will allways remind her of his charisma,his presence, and the awesome legacy he left behind!

I think many people have brought up a good point about other parents that are alive and still have no presence in their child's life. Much more selfish than the situation here. I guess my point is that far greater injustices are dealt to people everyday. It is truly sad that his daughter has to grow up with out his presence. I do believe that he was very calculated in his risk taking and he obviously accepted that risk just as much as we all except the risk of driving.

I thing dan was an extremely visionary guy who was willing to hang it all out there for sheer thrill of doing it. We're all wired differently and that was his thing.

Mike Anderson wrote: Personally, I don't like the "They died doing what they loved" statement. I don't know any climbers that love impacting talus at terminal velocity, freezing to death in a storm, or suffocating in an avalanche. You could say that they died shortly after doing what they loved, but I suspect few ever love dying.

I have to agree. I've thought about that very statement when I've been in a sketchy situation and I've never thought "It'd be OK to die now because I'm doing what I love." I wouldn't want to die climbing. I can't think of a scarier, messier way to go.