Impressive, but also stupidly risky no matter how good you are.
I wrote below that I am also critical.
Interviewer:
Does having a family make it impossible to climb without fear entering your mind?
Alex:
"Time will tell. It’s maybe possible, but it might be a challenge. I think it's easier to free solo when you can tell yourself that your life doesn't matter that much. You’re kind of like, “Well, I'm just doing my thing, and it's my own choice.” And if you have any real acceptance that your life matters a lot to other people, then you are sort of like, “Well, you know, it's sort of my responsibility to not squander that.”
On the other hand, with a lot of the hard free soloing, the whole point is to make it feel safe and relatively comfortable. To basically prepare enough that it doesn't feel like you're rolling the dice.
Actually, last fall I did a big soloing traverse in Red Rock, near my home in Las Vegas. It was a 32-hour soloing traverse by myself, climbing up over all the major peaks in Red Rock. I think to the average viewer, they'd be like, “Holy shit, he’s still soloing at a really high level.” But the reality is that, for me personally, that just doesn't feel like extreme free soloing in the same way. It was kind of more akin to ultrarunning or like a giant endurance event or something. I was free soloing, but it’s a far cry from El Cap."
My thoughts:
While he is skilled he isn't taking the natural environment in his equation. It might be a easypeasy climb like he mentions in the interview above.
Sure, but the risk of Rockfall, high winds, adverse weather, unexpecited animals mid route, sudden noises etc. that scare you are still real.
In Nevada where he climbs they have air force jets, if you get caught off guard during a climb things can get friggin' dangerous.
Yeah I understand this doesn't happen every day but once you have children I wouldn't want to risk a single solo climb. It's not required and he is climbing at a level he doesn't have to prove anyone anything. He is rich and already extremely good. At this point it's selfish and stupid.
I don't know normally I really don't care but well I don't think free soloing should be glorified and he is a person that younger people look up to. He is a person younger people SHOULDN'T look up to. Climbing without a rope shouldn't look like they are better climbers than climbers with ropes.
Especially because we have access to ropes, we have them for a reason.
Most climbs he solos are nothing and I'd say most of the climbs might go well but nature can screw him up.
A fly lands on your nose and you get distracted - you die.
Free solo equates with being totally alone on the rock, not being able to call anyone for help, and not being able to bail if things go wrong. You either go up, or you fall (and very probably, die). Another option might be climb back down, but.... dunno why would you climb down if you already know the route and are confident?
That's all it is. Nothing a man should risk once you have children.
He's an adrenaline junkie. Like most addicts, he only cares about his next fix. Nothing else matters.
It's extremely selfish, narcissistic.
You forgot to mention that a sudden health problem will result in 100% death as well (like losing consciusness for whatever reason) in a free climbing context.
aswell
Not a word, my dude.
Yeah you are right, sorry but english is not my native language and i had to look for this error lol. Thanks.
When he said "last fall" I thought he meant something else
Yeah way more difficult climbs that require gear and are impossible to freeclimb sounds a lot cooler anyway.
Nothing a man should risk once you have children.
There is risk in everything. Being an employee and relying on a business to provide you with money is risky, yet billions of men take that risk across their working lives.
If a man cannot risk anything to have a family, then there will never be any man who qualifies.
In fact many men work high risk jobs because they pay the most.
I think you misunderstood. What you mentioned are risks that have a payoff; some reason to do them, and sometimes that's required. This doesn't really. Maybe he makes slightly more money, but he really doesn't need that even if that's the case. It's more like the risk of sticking a loaded gun in your mouth because you like the taste, not going to work because you need money to live.
What you mentioned are risks that have a payoff; ... This doesn’t really. Maybe he makes slightly more money
Is $3 million net worth at 36 years old "slightly more money" these days? I'm further behind than I thought.
How much would he make using ropes. I'm sure it'd be pretty damn close. Slightly more money means how much with ropes - how much without being fairly small. It's not saying he's not making a lot in general. That'd be stupid.
How much would he make using ropes. I’m sure it’d be pretty damn close.
I'm confident he would be just another climber and wouldn't be world famous and wouldn't be able to demand such high payment. He makes fat stacks because he is extraordinary, not because he's doing what everyone else is doing.
Alex Honnold (born August 17, 1985) is an American rock climber best known for his free solo ascents of big walls. Honnold rose to worldwide fame in June 2017 when he became the first person to free solo a route on El Capitan in Yosemite National Park (via the 2,900-foot route Freerider at 5.13a, the first-ever at that grade),
I'm not saying in the past, nor is anyone else in this thread. We're saying today, now that he has a family. He wouldn't lose his fame because he started using safety gear. He'd still be extraordinary. He'd still be doing things no one else can. In fact, dealing with safety gear would add to the challenge. It'd remove some of the fear, but the climbs would be more challenging.
You're taking vastly different levels and kinds of risk and equating them. That's either disingenuous or foolish, but we can only guess which.
I would argue that the saying "Nothing a man should risk once you have children." is doing exactly as you are describing.
Stupidly? If you have full awareness and understanding of the risk you aren't being stupid
There's a significant flaw in that reasoning...
"I knew I was walking into a lion cage and that I would be attacked. I wasn't stupid when I then did it!"
If you're a fully trained, and aware lion trainer or zookeeper, it's not stupid
What if you do so without any protection that said training would recommend that you have?
You see - simply being knowledgeable about the risks doesn't mean you aren't being stupid. In fact knowing the risks and taking them anyway could be seen as more stupid than if you were simply ignorant.
Astronauts and engineers in the apollo program deeply understood the risks. Were they stupid for attempting increasingly complex orbital missions and even landing on the moon?
It was insanely risky, but they studied it, and understood it as best they could.
This dude is the world's preeminent free climber, it's safe to say he used protection when he was a novice climber, and it's safe to say he has "NASA" levels of understanding of the risks he encounters on a wall.
You're missing one massive part of everything here. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with UNDERSTANDING the risks.
It has EVERYTHING to do with MITIGATING those risks to the best of your ability.
The Apollo program astronauts didn't tell NASA to just disable a bunch of safety protocols because they wanted an adrenaline rush.
Stupidity and risk are not the same, is my point.
Mitigating risk is achieved through deeply understanding the problem space, and putting in the training to demonstrate ability to operate within the workspace.
Edit if Alex tried to mitigate risk to 100% he'd never climb again...people die all the time while using protection. Things happen. Life happens.
Stupidity is blundering in without understanding the space. Ex "local man who has never climbed before takes up free climbing" is stupid.
NASA absolutely pared down safety "wants" left and right, they pioneered the technical risk analysis methods that resulted in the successes (and failures) of that program. It's a fascinating read if you're curious
Stupidity is blundering in without understanding the space. Ex “local man who has never climbed before takes up free climbing” is stupid.
That is also stupid. But ignoring easy risk mitigation efforts "just because" is also stupid. ESPECIALLY if you do understand the risks.
He has mitigated the risk. And understands them.
Astronauts don't for a cause. This guy's best cause is maintaining fame.
It's his own enjoyment, he was doing this before the Fame
Nah, there is no rational thought process that's going to lead you to the conclusion that doing this is a good idea. That's like saying playing Russian roulette is a good idea if you're aware of the risks.
Impressive, but also stupidly risky no matter how good you are.
I wrote below that I am also critical.
Interviewer: Does having a family make it impossible to climb without fear entering your mind?
Alex: "Time will tell. It’s maybe possible, but it might be a challenge. I think it's easier to free solo when you can tell yourself that your life doesn't matter that much. You’re kind of like, “Well, I'm just doing my thing, and it's my own choice.” And if you have any real acceptance that your life matters a lot to other people, then you are sort of like, “Well, you know, it's sort of my responsibility to not squander that.”
On the other hand, with a lot of the hard free soloing, the whole point is to make it feel safe and relatively comfortable. To basically prepare enough that it doesn't feel like you're rolling the dice.
Actually, last fall I did a big soloing traverse in Red Rock, near my home in Las Vegas. It was a 32-hour soloing traverse by myself, climbing up over all the major peaks in Red Rock. I think to the average viewer, they'd be like, “Holy shit, he’s still soloing at a really high level.” But the reality is that, for me personally, that just doesn't feel like extreme free soloing in the same way. It was kind of more akin to ultrarunning or like a giant endurance event or something. I was free soloing, but it’s a far cry from El Cap."
My thoughts: While he is skilled he isn't taking the natural environment in his equation. It might be a easypeasy climb like he mentions in the interview above. Sure, but the risk of Rockfall, high winds, adverse weather, unexpecited animals mid route, sudden noises etc. that scare you are still real. In Nevada where he climbs they have air force jets, if you get caught off guard during a climb things can get friggin' dangerous.
Yeah I understand this doesn't happen every day but once you have children I wouldn't want to risk a single solo climb. It's not required and he is climbing at a level he doesn't have to prove anyone anything. He is rich and already extremely good. At this point it's selfish and stupid. I don't know normally I really don't care but well I don't think free soloing should be glorified and he is a person that younger people look up to. He is a person younger people SHOULDN'T look up to. Climbing without a rope shouldn't look like they are better climbers than climbers with ropes. Especially because we have access to ropes, we have them for a reason.
Most climbs he solos are nothing and I'd say most of the climbs might go well but nature can screw him up. A fly lands on your nose and you get distracted - you die. Free solo equates with being totally alone on the rock, not being able to call anyone for help, and not being able to bail if things go wrong. You either go up, or you fall (and very probably, die). Another option might be climb back down, but.... dunno why would you climb down if you already know the route and are confident?
That's all it is. Nothing a man should risk once you have children.
He's an adrenaline junkie. Like most addicts, he only cares about his next fix. Nothing else matters.
It's extremely selfish, narcissistic.
You forgot to mention that a sudden health problem will result in 100% death as well (like losing consciusness for whatever reason) in a free climbing context.
Not a word, my dude.
Yeah you are right, sorry but english is not my native language and i had to look for this error lol. Thanks.
When he said "last fall" I thought he meant something else
Yeah way more difficult climbs that require gear and are impossible to freeclimb sounds a lot cooler anyway.
There is risk in everything. Being an employee and relying on a business to provide you with money is risky, yet billions of men take that risk across their working lives.
If a man cannot risk anything to have a family, then there will never be any man who qualifies.
In fact many men work high risk jobs because they pay the most.
I think you misunderstood. What you mentioned are risks that have a payoff; some reason to do them, and sometimes that's required. This doesn't really. Maybe he makes slightly more money, but he really doesn't need that even if that's the case. It's more like the risk of sticking a loaded gun in your mouth because you like the taste, not going to work because you need money to live.
Is $3 million net worth at 36 years old "slightly more money" these days? I'm further behind than I thought.
https://www.climbingfacts.com/alex-honnold-net-worth/
How much would he make using ropes. I'm sure it'd be pretty damn close. Slightly more money means how much with ropes - how much without being fairly small. It's not saying he's not making a lot in general. That'd be stupid.
I'm confident he would be just another climber and wouldn't be world famous and wouldn't be able to demand such high payment. He makes fat stacks because he is extraordinary, not because he's doing what everyone else is doing.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Honnold
Fortune favours the bold.
I'm not saying in the past, nor is anyone else in this thread. We're saying today, now that he has a family. He wouldn't lose his fame because he started using safety gear. He'd still be extraordinary. He'd still be doing things no one else can. In fact, dealing with safety gear would add to the challenge. It'd remove some of the fear, but the climbs would be more challenging.
You're taking vastly different levels and kinds of risk and equating them. That's either disingenuous or foolish, but we can only guess which.
I would argue that the saying "Nothing a man should risk once you have children." is doing exactly as you are describing.
Stupidly? If you have full awareness and understanding of the risk you aren't being stupid
There's a significant flaw in that reasoning...
"I knew I was walking into a lion cage and that I would be attacked. I wasn't stupid when I then did it!"
If you're a fully trained, and aware lion trainer or zookeeper, it's not stupid
What if you do so without any protection that said training would recommend that you have?
You see - simply being knowledgeable about the risks doesn't mean you aren't being stupid. In fact knowing the risks and taking them anyway could be seen as more stupid than if you were simply ignorant.
Astronauts and engineers in the apollo program deeply understood the risks. Were they stupid for attempting increasingly complex orbital missions and even landing on the moon?
It was insanely risky, but they studied it, and understood it as best they could.
This dude is the world's preeminent free climber, it's safe to say he used protection when he was a novice climber, and it's safe to say he has "NASA" levels of understanding of the risks he encounters on a wall.
You're missing one massive part of everything here. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with UNDERSTANDING the risks.
It has EVERYTHING to do with MITIGATING those risks to the best of your ability.
The Apollo program astronauts didn't tell NASA to just disable a bunch of safety protocols because they wanted an adrenaline rush.
Stupidity and risk are not the same, is my point.
Mitigating risk is achieved through deeply understanding the problem space, and putting in the training to demonstrate ability to operate within the workspace.
Edit if Alex tried to mitigate risk to 100% he'd never climb again...people die all the time while using protection. Things happen. Life happens.
Stupidity is blundering in without understanding the space. Ex "local man who has never climbed before takes up free climbing" is stupid.
NASA absolutely pared down safety "wants" left and right, they pioneered the technical risk analysis methods that resulted in the successes (and failures) of that program. It's a fascinating read if you're curious
That is also stupid. But ignoring easy risk mitigation efforts "just because" is also stupid. ESPECIALLY if you do understand the risks.
He has mitigated the risk. And understands them.
Astronauts don't for a cause. This guy's best cause is maintaining fame.
It's his own enjoyment, he was doing this before the Fame
Nah, there is no rational thought process that's going to lead you to the conclusion that doing this is a good idea. That's like saying playing Russian roulette is a good idea if you're aware of the risks.