![Free Soloist Martin Feistl Dies in 40m Fall](https://external-preview.redd.it/ZivzB25z1GEXoe8oUc6ogzIQj80su13gByld9bvVHaA.jpg?auto=webp&s=dd55b5be0ac6da0a548eb0b7def8d0b8b13fecfa)
explorersweb.com/free-soloist-dies-in-40m-fall/
Only insightful comment here.
Yeah this guy was by all accounts a grade A crusher and this was probably not even in the top ten most dangerous things he did in his climbing career. Just unlucky. A lot of very tedious predictable comments in this thread.
On the other hand, the more time you spend doing dangerous things, the more chances you have to get unlucky.
I think this is the thing with soloing. You can be successful 100 times or 1000 times or 10,000 times. It doesn’t matter. All you have to do is be unsuccessful one time.
No shade to people who solo. I find it very impressive. But I could never do it myself.
Almost any form of climbing is dangerous, we TRY to mitigate that. Even Free Solo guys, often by lower grades.
Difference is, there's no way I'm leaving it up to "my hands and feet are my pro". Yes gear can fail, accidents can happen, but you're doing your best to account for foreseeable failure.
My hands and feet are not made to rigorous safety standards, designed by highly trained professionals and produced under strict supervision and quality control. My hands and feet are also not made out of precision machined aluminum, steel, or webbed nylon.
I trust my hands and feet only to stay attached to my body. No way am I trusting my life to them. No disrespect to people who solo, but it's not for me.
It’s bit off topic…but your hands and feet are far more impressive than a cam. What isn’t well designed or stable is the rock face you climb.
I get your point, but a couple hundred thousand years of blind trial-and-error optimizing for mostly walking on flat ground and using crude tools is not more impressive to me than a device that can be installed in a very thin crack of rock in 3 seconds that will hold fall forces of several ten kN while weighing only a hundred grams itself.
And yes, obviously the rock itself is often the biggest unknown. We like it that way though, so nothing to be done about it. Unless you want to stick to gym climbing exclusively.
Bro thinks engineering is cool but wait until he finds out about how the human body works
this
same thing with tying in, rappelling, cleaning and anchor, etc etc. Only takes one time.
Not saying those have anywhere near the hourly failure rate of soloing, just putting it in perspective.
Right but there’s a difference when you have multiple contingencies and failsafes.
There aren't failsafes in most those mentioned. Best you can hope for is buddy checks and weighting systems while backed up before removing your backup
Rappelling you should have a third hand and cleaning an anchor you should do so while still on belay. Don't have to do either, but best practice is to do both
There are other types of climbing that single pitch sport. In more adventurous climbing styles there are often single points of failure, and often length of a persons climbing career is a good indicator for how many severe accidents they’ve had. Much of climbing is inherently dangerous. Soloing obviously included.
Yeah sounds like he did a lot of alpine and mixed climbing where there’s already a “the leader must not fall” mentality. Shits dangerous with or without ropes. There’s always a time/safety tradeoff between pitching it out, simul climbing, and soloing. May the odds be ever in your favor. Sounds like most people here just do by the book sport climbing, which is fine but isn’t really the same sport this guy was doing.
right, but just because there are controls in place to mitigate the risks, doesn’t mean each can’t fail together. People die rappelling more often than climbing.
people die rappelling while skipping over safety practices
Which comes when people have the attitude of "I'm on safe gear so I'm safe" so stop relying on their own body/actions to make themselves safe by carrying out the safety practices. It's all different sides of the same coin.
Right? Honnold broke his back on a single pitch rapping off the end of his rope?
no he was dropped while being lowered because the rope was too short and they didn't tie a stopper knot.
Lowering, not rapping. My bad.
Brad broke his back and ankle on Viceroy after an 18' fall when his only gear pulled. Doesn't take much to get seriously hurt.
I played donkey kong arcade. It has a high percentage success rate. But if you try to go 10/10 it has a very annoying way of killing you. Odds run out.
It's true, but how many of us go scrambling in places with exposure? Maybe only class 3 or 4 stuff, but where a fall could be deadly. I've certainly pushed my own comfort zone low class 5 without protection. It's not a perfect comparison, but he died something very similar to what a lot of us do, just with him being much better at that particular something.
Yeah, but I at least don't do that day in day out. At some point you'll run into a hold that breaks or some freak accident no matter how capable.
Bout like getting t-boned at a red light? Some times shit happens no matter how much preparation. Whenever I would solo a route, I absolutely trusted my hands and feet more than any gear. There are too many variables I couldn't control sport climbing. Those who know, know.
I stopped as I got older. Mainly because I don't trust my hands and feet like I used too.
It's pretty common territory for a lot of people, but nobody bats an eye compared to free soloing. And it's not like free soloists are exclusively climbing sans rope.
I certainly agree that there is a huge element of risk to free soloing, but I think it's not only wrong, but even hypocritical to judge those that do. Like, he's being irresponsible, but I'm not because "I at least don't do that day in day out."
Just picking on you as an example btw, not saying your judging or anything else.
I don't think it's hypocritical. If someone has a beer every now and then, it doesn't mean they can't say "drinking a handle of vodka every night is bad."
I didn't think that's a good analogy though. Scrambling with exposure carries a risk of death, just like soloing. Drinking an occasional beer has none of the risk of drinking a handle of vodka every night. The moral argument against free soloing is that it's selfish behavior that hurts others if and when you fall. Pretty much all of us are doing the same thing to some extent. The line is arbitrary.
Pretty much all of us are doing the same thing to some extent.
The extent matters.
Drinking an occasional beer has none of the risk of drinking a handle of vodka every night
Drinking any amount of alcohol increases your risk of heart disease and cancer. The more you drink the worse it is.
If we're stuck on that comparison, an occasional beer would be like hopping on an auto belay lol. Obviously extent matters, but so does skill and personal risk tolerance. Downplaying the dangers we take on while judging his is absolutely hypocritical.
100%, but this criticism applies to all top tier alpine climbers, all of some have probably spent a significant amount of time soloing.
When the subject matter is an activity widely recognized to be an unwarranted risk, insightful criticisms are also pretty guaranteed to be tedious and predictable. There's nothing to be said about this that hasn't been said a million times. Just because those things have been said a million times doesn't make them any less true.
"Unwarranted" - by whom? It's a personal choice.
The point is that, in the context of Feistl's career as a climber, this solo was not hugely risky. The stuff he did alpine climbing in the Himalaya and elsewhere was much more dangerous, and nobody is out here condemning him for that, despite the fact that alpine climbing is just as "pointless" as soloing.
If you die climbing (or in the mountains generally) one of the things that will happen is that people who never knew you will call you selfish, etc., whether you were soloing or not. It's just something that you have to accept.
I think Honnold had a stat that (at least at the time of mentioning) no one had fallen soloing anything at their limit. It was always easy stuff.
I guess more volume, more chances and probably more chance to switch off.
Yep, he said in Free Solo, nobody ever died doing something cutting edge.
Seems kinda hypocritical of him to say, doesn't he often use an analogy like "you aren't just gonna fall over walking down the street" (heavily paraphrased)
Yes and it's obviously a bad analogy. People slip often when the sidewalk is wet, or icy. And they stumble on unexpected bumps.
Counter point: No one would fall on an unexpected bump if they knew a fall would kill them, as they would be paying more attention. Have I ever slipped or tripped on a sidewalk? Yes. If you put me on a sidewalk and said if you fall you die, would I risk walking down the sidewalk? Also yes, I would just be more focused.
For my job I walk on steel beans 100 feet in the air. I sometimes still stumble, people absolutely still trip. We have safety gear but still. Accidents can always always happen
Fellow IATSE brother or something else?
Yessir! Well I don't have my card yet but I'm working on it
Same here. I’m thinking “how many jobs cruise around on beams like that”?
The transition from rock climbing to walking beams was way more of a mindfuck than I ever imagined. Ever worked a venue where they wiggle?
People fall off the edge of the grand canyon every year. Not from climbing, just standing too close and tripping/slipping
People way out of their normal environment though. Anyway, I’m not even arguing that accidents CAN’T happen, obviously there is objective risk involved in any situation where a fall means certain death. I’m just clarifying Honnold’s point about people walking on sidewalks, which as I understood it is that there isn’t that much ADDITIONAL risk from soloing well below you’re ability level relative to the risk of existing out in the world. Is it riskier than sitting on the couch? A lot riskier. Is it riskier than crossing a busy street? Maybe only a little.
I’ve definitely stumbled over way more bumps in the sidewalk than I’d like to admit
but is this also because most people who do solo, dont do it at their limit?
Alex Huber soloed 5.14a, that's not that far from his peak sport grade. People definitely do that kind of stuff.
i said most... obviously there are outliers
I'm using that example because he's famous and you can easily verify his hardest grades, I don't think soloing three YDS grades below your peak grade is at all uncommon, especially if it's not onsight. Hell, look at like, British trad climbing which is often soloing by other means basically.
Dave MacLeod has an 8b+ free solo, that's pretty fucking hard.
More of a leg-breaking free solo than a guaranteed death free solo though
Dave MacLeod also put up Rhapsody - E11 7a (roughly translates to 5.14c R). Crusher.
I wonder if complacency is the issue. I've worked a lot of very physically dangerous jobs it's almost never the new guys who get hurt or killed, it's the guys who have been doing it forever.
The sawmill for example, new guys were hyper aware of how dangerous everything was. Old bastards seems not to care. Then someone at our sister plant lost and arm to a saw and died before anyone could help them. A couple weeks later one of our guys got caught in drag chains and nearly got dragged into the hot press, luckily someone saw on camera and got the whole thing into emergency shutdown.
That wasnt what Honnold was talking about. He was talking about the best soloists in history dying some other way. Micheal Reardon was killed by a rouge wave, Dan Osmond was jumping offLeaning tower with mulpiole ropes tied together and john bachar was past his prime with a shoulder injury that could have contributed to him falling and dean potter died wing suiting. Its a fair case fore the safety of free soling. Then again, people still get killed soloing and we need to accept it when bad things happen. I used to solo on occasion but as I no longer “knew” I wouldnt fall. So I dont anymore.
But how many free soloists are climbing anything at their limit??
I wouldn't condemn free soloing because at the end of the day, its your life and if you understand the risks and choose to participate that's just your choice.
But I don't think the approach scramble comparison is a good one. Falling on an approach is not certain death. Falling on a free solo like this is basically certain death. The risk of accident may be comparable but the consequences are not.
I have replied to a few other comments but in brief I have been on a good many scrambles where a death fall is very possible. Including approach scrambles or exit scrambles.
If you’re familiar with Portland in the UK, some of the approaches are 5 minutes and well trafficked, but on thin paths over 20m+ drops, if you tripped on a shoelace or slid on a wet day, you could easily tumble over an edge. We all take it for granted because it’s a playground to us, we don’t tend to stop and think ‘wow that could be mental if one of us fell,’ we just step around the piece of collapsed face and mosey on up the trail. Our eyes are on the ‘dangerous’ stuff. It’s anecdotal, but it’s true, some approaches can kill, especially when they lead to climbs for beginners.
I got so freaked out after the walk in first time in the area I couldn't lead first few climbs. Too much adrenaline used up. So yes, completely agree
Falling on an approach is not certain death.
Many places it absolutely is.
A few years ago a pro level climber fell and died on the approach to the standard sport route of monkey face at Smith. Guidebook describes as “safe for anyone to climb aboard” 5.7.
You underestimate the risk of ordinary, everyday scrambles. You fall off the wrong class 3, not even a 4, and you’re just dead.
Some class 2 trails I’ve hiked had fixed lines with huge exposure where taking a tumble would’ve been death.
The sport is not safe and does not tolerate failure well.
this is the critical thinking a lot of people are missing in my experience. Same goes for situations in which you’re soloing on easy terrain to mitigate objective hazards (rockfall, icefall, etc.) by spending less time in a hazardous area.
It feels like a simplification purely based on labelling in some cases. Martin Feistl did a lot in the alps so I am naturally thinking of my time there. In the alps some of the approach “hikes” had truly dangerous sections, harder than some of the pitches. But because one is an approach and one a climbing pitch many people would draw a sharp line between doing one or the other un-roped.
Not to mention some of the bolted multi pitch routes finished with a scramble to the top. I was lucky we took a rack of nuts on one bolted route to do a trad lead to finish.
There are many climbs I would feel safer soloing than some of the sketchy approaches or finishes. How many of these people who say soloing is always stupid wouldn’t think twice is someone told them about a scary hike? The categories aren’t so well define.
Wholeheartedly agree
In the wider climbing community though, how many actively participate in those types of environments? Of the people at your local gym, how many have soloed easier sections of alpine routes because weather was moving in and they had to boogie to beat it (e.g.)?
I can't fault people for lacking that perspective if they've scarcely been in those situations.
Then they shouldn't be judging others so harshly for an activity they don't understand
Oh yeah no, I agree with you. I'm just not surprised, is all. This shit always happens when a soloist dies. Hell, it happened when Brad Gobright died even though he wasn't soloing when he passed.
fair point - i think what goes along with that are inexperienced people commenting on things they have no idea how it works.
John Bacher died on a 5.9. Crazy how that happens
Gravity has no grade
Most nuanced comment in this thread so far.
Honestly a little surprised to see it at the top considering this is Reddit, but agreed!
Thought I was sorting by controversial there for a second /s
Sorry but the math isn't mathing here.
A = The list of events that can result in serious injury or death while an expert is free soloing B = The list of events that can result in death or serious injury while a gumby is scrambling
In my mind at least, no amount of training or expertise can make A as long or shorter than B.
A includes everything from your body randomly deciding to cramp, to a hold breaking off or a killer sneeze or a bird flying into your face...
The gamble of free soloing is just not at all comparable, in my opinion.
People can and do regularly die scrambling. For a climber such as this guy, the route essentially was a scramble.
For example Luce Douady's fatal accident in 2020 when she slipped on the approach hike. It's sobering how much "free soloing" we all do at various times on approaches and descents, even if we don't recognize it as such.
I am not the best writer so I apologise for lack of clarity. Perhaps we have different ideas of scrambling but the list you provided I could very well see ending in disaster on a moist approach or technical scramble. In the alps, Scottish highlands, and Saxon switzerland I have experienced scrambles, hikes, and exits that all had less margin for error than some climbs.
Last week I did a grade I climb in Saxon Switzerland, it was a squeeze chimney where it was almost impossible to fall out, if you fell you would get stuck. After abseiling down the abseil line deposited me in a wide, blocky chimney. The exit was scrambling along the chimney (pretty safe) and then a down climb which I would say was harder than the climb, maybe a III. Both of those were easier than “the bad step” on the An Teallach ridge scramble. A foot hold break there would likely be fatal.
I don't feel the need to condemn free soloing but you raise a point which has bothered me a lot, which is that scrambling is just free soloing something considered very easy by the soloist. I feel like the term really downplays the risks involved and the first step to mitigating risk is acknowledging it.
Yeh this is a good part of my point. The boarders are not solid but people treat the two very differently. Simplistic categories are part of the problem here. I would much rather solo an easy squeeze chimney than do some of the approaches or exits I have done in the past. Sometimes all the guide book says is “adventurous approach” or something equally cryptic. And of course actual graded scramble are often harder than easy climbs and more exposed. Meaning they are both higher risk and higher consequence.
I worry that categories like this are dangerous as you say because the risk is not acknowledged but also because people go un prepared. I was lucky to have a set of nuts with me for the exit scramble on a bolted multi pitch but I guess some people might not consider roping up for something that is not ‘climbing’. On a different approach I scrambled up and then belayed my climbing partner from above for a slab section.
I think it's also a matter of volume. It's not any single climb that's high risk, it's that spending so much time soloing easy stuff exposes you to more chances of freak accidents.
No need to condemn. He didn’t kill someone else doing it. If you chose to free solo, you can die. If you die, it’s because you chose to free solo. He understood the consequences of his passion. Our opinions don’t matter.
Recently, I flashed a V7 and then fell on a V1. Be cautious.
This is exactly why I try my best avoid being in deadly exposure. Even easy scramble moves with exposure make me anxious.
But on the flip side I backcountry ski and avalanche hazard can be hidden and is not always easy to predict. The risk also has a similar quality - low probability, high consequence. I try my best to make quality decisions when out in avalanche terrain but I'm sure some people (and insurance companies) would consider it crazy to just be out there at all.
I understand your thoight process, but you are much less likely to die on an approach scramble than a free solo, even if the chances of a mistake are equal.
My point is to maintain nuance but to directly address your point some of these approaches had high death fall potential. Then there are scrambles and my example in a different comment of not an approach but a sketchy exit from a bolted multi pitch. We all play games with high consequence if we stop to think about it and I think this tragedy is a good time to reflect.
Similar to how Mark-Andre Leclerc died, bout the safest climb he had ever done and got nailed by a random avy
No it isn’t
Man. Great thoughts. There's always that x-factor of things we can't control. Nothing is 100%. I try to remember that I should have a healthy fear. It will at least keep me always vigilant, that's all you can do
Should anything be condemned? It was his passion and he was well aware of the risks. Should rules be put in place to prevent someone from doing what they love if they know the possible outcomes and consequences? It’s a sad loss but we all go and he had the privilege of going out doing something he truly loved and cared about. He chose to free solo in part because he wanted a pure experience and one that left little environmental impact. Please know I don’t mean any disrespect or anything.
Sorry for the folks who had to recover his body.
I had the pleasure to meet and belay Martin on one of his projects in Iceland last year. A lovely soul. The overwhelming memory I have of him is that he was stressed out and feeling under pressure as a professional climber. A tragic loss.
Thank you for sharing!
Why was he feeling under pressure?
Making a living from climbing is brutally difficult
Pressure to keep performing, keep producing content to satisfy sponsors.
Always breaking barriers until you break yourself and can't get better. Chris Sharma i think had a video about eventually hating climbing or something like 15 years ago.
that is unfortunate, its sad to know this happens. i also knew him from his homegym, even tho i didnt do much climbing with him
I think that he knew the risks. Dying while doing something you love? It's a good death.
I'm sure that's what he was thinking as he fell.
I mean unless you die in your sleep, no death is going to be pleasant. Personally I would rather die falling of a cliff while doing something i love than shitting myself to death in a hospice.
one of my problems with free soloing is that you are exposing other people to the risk of witnessing someone's tragic and entirely preventable death.
This argument is being used more and more as another way for society to control people, and the excuse itself is just an extension of society's unwillingness to grapple the reality of death, and to thus coddle everyone into pretending it doesn't exist. Death exists, and if people can't accept that it is no-one else's job to protect them from it, and certainly not to avoid doing what they love simply for that sake.
I'm not saying the potential for trauma isn't real, or that trauma shouldn't be taken seriously. But, in this case that trauma is, fundamentally, an awakening to the reality of death. An awakening which somehow we view as if it is to avoided at all costs. It strikes me as a horrible excuse for limiting freedoms and telling people they are wrong for doing what they love. A person dies and the worry is maybe someone else might witness it.
I do not and will not freesolo, but I support the right of folks who do to do so... and I have been the person searching for their body at the bottom (though I admit I've never personally found one).
I don't think anyone is trying to restrict freedoms. But people should consider the well being of their friends and family and the people who will have to come rescue/recover them if they fuck up. This applies to pretty much all outdoor recreation. The conversation about risk tolerance is always framed as a purely individual choice but it really shouldn't be.
imagine you take your kids out to do some super easy short climbs nearby and they witness a young mans body exploding on the ground near them because he felt the desire to push "the boundaries" of whats been done before by removing more and more safety mechanisms.
At first it was climb the mountain at all. When that wasnt "pure" enough it was, climb the mountain by yourself (with gear) When that wasnt "pure" enough it was, climb the mountain with no gear When that wasn't "pure" enough it was flash the route with no gear.
At a certain point removing safety is the only way to demonstrate novelty. And yes others will have to suffer the potential trauma not only of him dying but of his body exploding in a public place. Its unnecessary machoism in search of fleeting novelty
One time I was having a fairly normal day out bouldering and I saw some dude hike up a cliff, get to the top, and then somehow he fell off and died. Sometimes shit happens. You don't dictate nature, it just lets you play in it. I will never forget him, he taught me quite the lesson that day.
This is a bad take, the mountains are a dangerous place and anyone who wants to spend their time there should be aware and prepared for worse case scenarios. Nature should not be anyone's safe space.
By similar logic we should condemn diving cars, it puts far more people at a much greater risk. Not only of witnessing a tragic death but being a potential victim.
Sure but dying at 27 is rough, man
It's quite sad, that he is described here as free soloist, and not as alpinist. It does give a false image of a truely humble und reputable man.
With his pure, tradinionalist and dedicated style he was respected by many top-athletes. Like a rock in the waves, he critisized modern alpinism whenever he could, wrote several thought provoking articles. He didn't seek publicity, didn't share his solo climbs and has struggeled with being a professional.
Martins death is a huge loss to modern alpinism.
Great sentiment, appreciate your words. I’d be really interested to read some of his writing, have you got any links?
No specific links here, but he was frequently featured in Mountain Equipments blog, mostly in German, sometimes in English. You can also find some articles on bergsteigen.com, where he published his routes.
In his article to "daily dose of luck" he describes and reflects a solo ascent of a new ice/mixed route, reading it again after his death really made me think yesterday...
Senseless death. Free soloing just isn’t worth the potential cost.
You could say this about any accidental death.
Nearly all experienced climbers have been in situations where they faced a lethal ground fall, regardless of whether they were "free soloing" or not. Sometimes they get killed. To an outside observer, those deaths are just as senseless.
Should I or one of my climbing partners get really unlucky one day, I would hope the first thing their loved ones read isn't someone from within my own community's forum saying something like this.
My condolences to his family.
And welcome to /r/climbing, by the way. Looks like your first post.
Climbing with gear is substantially safer than climbing without gear. It’s like comparing driving 70mph with or without a seatbelt. Both are dangerous, but one is unnecessarily dangerous. No one is arguing that we can’t do dangerous things, they’re arguing that if there’s a way to make it significantly safer then maybe it should be done the safer way. Just sparking discussion.
but one is unnecessarily dangerous
None of this is necessary at all. Harm reduction within inherently dangerous and unnecessary tasks is where you arbitrarily draw your line of acceptable risk - other people are not senseless for drawing theirs elsewhere, and to suggest that they are is selfish.
If you go climbing outdoors you can get killed without a damn say in the matter, regardless of the precautions you take, and people without a clue will call you senseless online.
One has got layers of safety systems. You can make mistakes all day long and nothing will come of it.
The other punishes a single mistake with death.
They are not comparable.
Edit: mistakes in climbing I mean. Not mistakes in the safety system. One punishes mistakes in climbing with death, the other with dropping down a couple metres.
I do agree with you to an extent but I think the issue other people are pointing out is that if you do riskier things then you are increasing the likelihood of creating a traumatic experience for others - the people who find your body, the people who love you, etc. And yes even just climbing with all the proper safety precautions increases that risk vs not climbing, but I think knowing that a free soloist is purposefully doing something in the most dangerous way is what can make it feel selfish. But I don’t think it’s a black and white issue ofc because Alex Honnold would tell you he doesn’t think he is doing something unsafe and maybe he isn’t.
Being "unnecessary" doesn't mean you can or should should ignore all risk mitigation. Climbing outdoors does not compare to free soloing.
I completely get free soloing and feel no need to complain or moralize when a climber dies free soloing, but comparing it to pretty much any other example of not observing a certain safety precaution is ludicrous.
Sure there is risk in doing anything but there is a lot more free soloing versus using proper gear. That’s actually the entire argument so it’s crazy that you missed it
There's an obvious difference between doing a dangerous activity while trying to mitigate risk, and doing that same activity while actively avoiding risk mitigation.
other people are not senseless for drawing theirs elsewhere
Hard disagree. There's a very easy to see difference of conscious intent. One person is actively attempting to protect themselves in the case of an accident, the other is not. It's such a huge difference in risk management that it's obviously on a whole nother level, leagues higher in risk. It's exactly like riding a motorcycle with no helmet—needlessly stupid on any kind of regular basis, I'm sure you would agree. You could be the world's best climber/rider. But it doesn't means things don't still happen. That's just facts
One person is actively attempting to protect themselves in the case of an accident, the other is not
Sorry, but this is complete bullshit. You think people who solo just don't care about death and don't do anything to protect themselves?
Lots of people here are confusing "consequence" with "danger." They are not the same. Danger is the product of risk (the likelihood of any given outcome) and consequence (how bad that outcome is), summed for all possible outcomes. Forget climbing, loads of everyday things that you do that you take completely for granted have death as a consequence if things go wrong. Literally just driving to the crag you could have a drunk driver smash into you head on and kill you. Sure, you can say you protect yourself by wearing a seatbelt etc, but that still might not be enough to save you. Those things lower the risk of having a crash that kills you, but the consequence is still the same since you haven't completely taken it away.
Those measures you take to lower the risk when driving are exactly the same as a soloist taking measures like only soloing well below their limit on rock they know to be good in good conditions etc. They lower the risk so they lower the danger, even though the consequence still exists.
if there’s a way to make it significantly safer then maybe it should be done the safer way
That would take out trad, highball bouldering, lead climbing if there's top access and rappeling instead of lowering down.
Climbing is inherently dangerous and selfish. How dangerous is up to each individuals but at the end of the day we're all doing something dangerous for no other reason than ''I like doing it''. Let's not start eating our own.
Yeah, but in those cases, you are still using pro because you can.
Even in those cases we are putting ourselves in danger for pretty much nothing.
All I'm saying is we're all knuckleheads doing risky shit for fun. Let's not forget that before passing judgment
so, do you top rope every pitch you can to mitigate the risk associated with leading?
I would say it's more like driving 70mph without brakes.
You've never been alpine rock climbing have you? It is VERY common to find yourself in a situation where the climbing is easy but falling would likely result in death or serious injury. Yet no one bats an eye at that.
There is no safe way to do most peaks and alpine climbs and there is usually not an argument like this when people die in avalanches. I don't really get how dying free soloing is so condemnable but people die in avalanches constantly and it's not like there is a backlash asking the community to never ice/alpine climb again.
Also a lot of people seem to think they aren't risking their lives when climbing normally which is pretty naive. Even the most experienced climbers can make gear mistakes which lead to their deaths. Will Gadd almost died from forgetting to lock a biner, Brad Gobright died from lack of knots in rappel ropes
Will Gadd has some great writing and speaking around risk. Always presents a really well thought out point of view.
Both are dangerous, but one is unnecessarily dangerous.
Where's the necessity in climbing, even with a rope? By that logic nobody should climb at all because you deem it unnecessary and dangerous.
How about instead of passing judgement, you keep such views to yourself, and instead have a little consideration for the friends and family of the guy. Everyone's levels of risk and reward vary and this post about Martin is the wrong place to discuss them imo. Take your discussions to a post not about Martin's passing.
Condolences and apologies to those who knew Martin.
I am not advocating free soloing but this analogy seems stretched unless people solo at there limit. I don’t have a good analogy to replace it with though. Perhaps a comparison of wearing your seatbelt for a road trip and then not wearing it for a short drive to the shop? Again not advocating anything I always wear my seatbelt.
Seems like a good analogy to me. 70mph is well within most people’s limits. Odds are you’d be fine, but you can’t foresee every circumstance or guarantee no mistakes will be made. Wearing your seatbelt makes your odds of surviving those rare events significantly higher. Same thing for climbing. Even if you’re soloing something easy, you can’t guarantee no mistakes will be made and there can always be unforeseen circumstances. Climbing ropes significantly increases your chance of surviving a fall. Risk isn’t the only factor to consider; consequence is also a factor. Something high risk but low consequence might be trivial—if someone wants to bet $1 on a foot race, I may take it just for the novelty, even if I’m likely to lose. However, something low risk but high consequence should be taken much more seriously—if I’ve climbed a high route 100 times and haven’t fallen the last 50, I’d still not solo it because falling means almost certain death. It’s the same reason I wear a seatbelt in a car—odds are I’ll get to my destination just fine, but the seatbelt could be the difference between walking away bruised and getting ejected from the windshield and dying.
Accepting that an activity has intrinsic risks is not the same as choosing not to mitigate risks.
This reminds me of a post in /r/all of the skateboarder who got a head injury, and all of the top comments are saying what a clown he is for not wearing a helmet. There was zero sympathy and no debate: he made a dumb decision to not wear a helmet. For some reason this logic of basic safety gear doesn’t checksum for much of the climbing community, and I will never understand why.
r/all is no better representation of the skate community than it is of the climbing community. Reading the comments in the skate sub would be more meaningful comparison
I’m typically a lurker and indoor bouldering chud. More of a biker and skier these days. I lost some of my taste for climbing after my brother took a serious ground-fall while we were climbing a few years back. I’ve probably got a bit of PTSD from being the first responder in that situation, so this issue hits close to home for me.
It’s a false equivalence to say that because climbing is an inherently risky sport, we may as well just say fuck it and climb without any protection. There’s participation in a risky sport with proper risk mitigation, then there’s having your spattered body parts cleaned up by a volunteer crew because you wanted to free solo.
Should I or one of my climbing partners get really unlucky one day, I would hope the first thing their loved ones read isn't someone from within my own community saying something like this.
My loved ones would absolutely be on board doing anything they could to prevent future deaths similar to the one that took their loved ones life.
And comparing free soloing to other accidental deaths is absolutely not an appropriate comparison.
A closer comparison would be wearing a seatbelt on a car, vs not wearing one in the car. Sure you can potentially die while wearing a seatbelt, but the chances of dying without a seatbelt go up considerably when you decide not to wear one.
It isn’t true that the same could -or should- be said about any accidental death. I could get hit by a car walking down the street, and no one would say I was taking an excessive risk. The difference is that this was needlessly risky.
That said, it’s just part of the deal. He accepted the risk. I agree that there’s no need to talk about how senseless it was when it made sense to him. It was worth it to him. No one gets to make that decision for him.
Wow what a claim to make that nearly all have faced a lethal ground fall of some sort even if not free soloing. I call bullshit on that one. Usually the common denominator in most deaths is pure negligence of some sort even if the climber is very experienced. I think it’s selfish in that now others who happen to be in the area now have to witness a nightmarish scenario and potentially risk their lives to help someone on a whim because that person decided they are impervious to making mistakes and do not require bomber equipment to ensure they make it home safely.
I think high-consequence fall potential arises a lot more often than most realize. Food for thought.
Are you saying that climbing with gear holds the same risk of death as climbing without gear?
Outside observer here. Climbing deaths for people climbing with gear are not just as senseless a free soloing deaths. They’re tragic, but free soloing is asking to die.
Nah
Begs the question, should the climbing community really support such a thing? When they fall it affects other people. When the media gives them the spotlight it could inspire lesser experienced climbers to try the same. Not that experience even matters, anyone can lose their footing on occasion.
I’m not giving an opinion but would be interested to hear some discussion.
When the media gives them the spotlight it could inspire lesser experienced climbers to try the same.
How much media attention was really given to this guy? I'm a fairly online climber and I've never heard of him. He currently has 3,500 instagram followers, which isn't really that many. I'd be wiling to bet that people who were already interested in free soloing sought him out, rather than people who didn't care for free soloing decide they're interested in it BECAUSE of him.
More generally, I'd really like to see some evidence that Free Solo actually caused an uptick in people soloing. It's by far the most high profile soloing media ever produced, and I seriously doubt it's caused a noteworthy increase in people soloing out there (in my subjective experience, I haven't seen an increase in stories like this where a soloist dies). And if Free Solo can't be shown to have caused an increase in soloing, then the argument about the influence of soloing media really needs to be put to rest.
Speaking for myself, Free Solo solidified even more in my mind my stance of never getting into it at all. It's the same as those people that climb buildings and jump around and hang off the ledges - completely senseless. There's so many ways of getting a rush that doesn't involve dying horribly.
Yeah for being called Free Solo, the documentary was pretty clear that Alex is senselessly putting his life in danger
Uh..he was very much known and respected in the mountaineering community, which is international and not centered in the US. There’s little cross over to “online climbing,” gym climbing or rock climbing
There’s little cross over to “online climbing,” gym climbing or rock climbing
Which, IMO, just supports my point. The only way you're going to know about this soloist is if you're already in the mountaineering community, which implies that you're at the very least learning about mountaineering, and that learning involves the dangers of it.
It's not like a new gym climber is going to hear about this guy and decide to do what he did.
I saw a post around a year ago from a young guy attempting a free solo at his home crag and almost falling to his death because of loose rock. He looked incredibly inexperienced as a climber in general and likely found the inspiration in the immense attention free soloing has gotten in recent years.
I also find it extremely weird to follow Alex Honnold on instagram and casually see him post routes he's soloed when he has a wife, a young child and a newborn waiting for him at home. Just doesn't sit right with me.
I saw a post around a year ago from a young guy attempting a free solo at his home crag and almost falling to his death because of loose rock
if it's the guy i'm thinking of... he did end up dying a bit later from a different climb.
That's totally fine if it doesn't sit right with you. His risk threshold doesn't have to align with yours. It's a selfish pursuit, and you don't have to agree on an acceptable level of selfishness.
That's all fine and good. As long as there is climbing, there will be free soloing. That's fine too.
I’d hate to be the one to explain that to the kid. ‘Why did dad climb that rock if he knew he could die?’
‘Cos.. hmm. 🤔 He enjoyed the thrill of almost dying’
‘Even when he had a wife and kids?’
‘Yes, even when he had a wife and kids.’
I do not support free soloing at all. However I support an individual to choose how they spend their life and how they impact their community and family. Typically, those family and community know the person they love and care about is doing this and seemingly come to terms with it. That's all theirs to hold and not mine. I advocate for mitigating risk while doing what people love. No one makes it out of life alive and some people just choose their adventure differently than me.
Oh stop. Such a tired argument. There are so many nuances to these decisions, it isn’t a black and white topic.
It might not be worth it for you, but don’t push your moral beliefs after a tragedy. It’s unbecoming.
I mean, I hope it was worth it for him. It certainly isn’t for me. Had he been climbing roped up, he’d still be alive to climb another day. It’s not a moral question, just a risk-benefit analysis.
I'm sure after the first time doing it he gave it a good think. Turns out it was worth it to him.
You could say the same about anyone who’s ever died after leaving the house. Had they stayed inside that day they would’ve lived, ergo they should never leave the house?
Can I borrow your crystal ball before my next outing?
Yes, I am sure this HIGHLY ACCOMPLISHED Mountain climber has never done the risk-benefit analysis of free soloing. Probably never crossed his mind all those hours planning trips and existing in climbing spaces. What a dummy, right?
/s
You will never understand the kind of ‘benefits’ these people get from free soloing - there is no point in trying to analyze it. They decide to free solo after years of dedicating their life to climbing, you’d think they might have considered the risks before doing it, or maybe after doing it the 3rd or 4th or 5th time. You don’t have to try and act holier-than-thou anytime someone dies doing something dangerous.
I get that the comment up top is nicely written but comparing free soloing to every day risks is just not right… we’re all not hypocrites encouraging people to put their lives at risks so maybe that’s why it clearly doesn’t make sense
Exactly
To you.
All life ends with death. I'd rather choose to live the life I want rather than wasting away bitter in old age and locked in my own body. Most deaths amongst the young are entirely preventable (famine, disease, war) and yet we would rather prattle online about some mad lad who went out doing what he loved.
It's a tragic loss, but his life was beautiful and the loss of it does not diminish from that. That dude really lived, can you honestly say the same? Where is your condemnation of firearms, smoking, guns and corporate greed? These things are far bigger risks to our health and welfare on any given day.
You don't have to like free soloing, and you also don't have to do it. Let people make their own choices, live how they want and pay the price for it. It's also disrespectful of the dead so keep your gumby opinions to yourself.
It is a free world. He chose to do it. In his mind, it was worth it. It might not be worth it for most.
Just hope it was and instant pain free death on impact. RIP
"He hit a ledge at the base of the wall, and the force of the impact threw Feistl into a field of old snow, where he slid a further 50 meters until reaching rocky ground,”
oh jeez..
In other words he bounced off the ledge. Brutal
Exactly, he knew the risks and I’m not going to call him dumb over it because he wasn’t. He took a risk and then it ended badly, thats just how things go.
They choose to do this and I’ll wish the best for his family and friends, nothing more to say.
RIP.
Damn, first time someone dies I have met quiet often in the local gym and on the rock. Some kind of local hero here in Augsburg.
Strange it says Austrian in the article, since he is from Dießen in Bavaria....
Shows the Austrian flag on his Instagram profile
These guys do what I could only dream of experiencing. It’s unfortunate that his time has passed. Prayers to his loved ones.
What can you say when this kind of stuff happens? Free soloist accept the risks, they enjoy what they are doing. He lived how he wanted to I guess, and that is good enough for him.
Really unfortunate he was a world class climber
Gone way too young. Sad for his family 😔
To each their own, but i would never risk putting my family and friends through this kind of pain. RIP and please yall; be safe out there
edit: downvote all you like. ppl cared about this man and he died doing some actual dumb shit
My heart is broken for his parents. Loss of such a young life is a devastating blow.
horror
Maybe we need society to teach more about the mental trauma that comes from losing someone to an accident, much less an accident that is entirely preventable. I refuse to form friendships with people who solo because I don’t want to attend their inevitable funeral.
I also will be the first to dig deep into stupid ideas like that when friends talk about it to me. Like “what if you fall?”, “remember when we had that close call on ropes?”, etc etc… some people really do get caught up in the culture of “push hard become fearless flirt with death” and I’m not going to just sit by and let that reckless behavior simmer.
Somewhat similar but there’s a heartbreaking documentary on YouTube about wingsuit fanatics. For all the love they have of the sport, they’ve lost so many friends to it and you can see how dead they are inside. But they still keep doing it. Eerily similar to drug addiction in a lot of ways…
Rest in peace Martin. Condolences to your family.
God rest his soul smh what a horrible way to go. That’s why I’d never go soloing, this was far under his ability level but sometimes you just get unlucky. Think of those times you accidentally slip off a route under your ability level…it happens to everyone of all abilities. Free soloing requires so much focus and perfection it’s insane. Even with that focus and perfection one instance of bad luck and your life is taken from you. The consequences are just not worth it in my opinion, I have people that I love that I need to be here for.
Rest in Peace. So sad for his friends and family and community. May his memory be a blessing.
I think the reason these free solo deaths (and climbing deaths broadly) hurt so much and stir so much debate and emotions is because it forces us to confront our own past choices in what we love to do - which is climb. Boulder without a pad, trad something heinous close to your limit, or even something as basic as how we set up and clean an anchor, people have died doing all of these things and it's scary/uncomfortable to be re-confronted with that reality every year.
But it's necessary for us to take stock again and again about how we're engaging in our passion and whether it still remains as safe or dangerous as we individually find acceptable. It's very easy to fall into a false sense of security every now and then and assume everything we're doing is 100% legit, and tragic events like this are sobering reminders to take what you're doing seriously and reexamine whether the amount of risk you're taking, however large or small it is, is acceptable to you. Rest in peace.
It's a fact that if you live by the sword you die by the sword. It's unfortunate, but it is the reality of the vertical world we live in.
If you free solo alone and never tell anyone about it, just get the thrill to yourself, fine. If you make so that you are well known as a "free soloist" everyone will be justifiably impressed with your courage. But, you are also inspiring some other kid to fall to their death.
Martin, may your soul be at peace ❤️
Rest easy
RIP Martin 💔. As I nearly died from a fall freesoloing way below my limit years ago, these always hit hard. I feel it's best not to judge the risk of this activity for another, because it always seems black and white from a 3rd-person point of view. May his spirit live on in the mountains
Cheers to a life lived to the fullest. Despite what happens in one's life, I believe it is a human born right to decide when and how we risk said life. RIP.
Looking at the topo this climb is so far below his normal climbing grade even if he fell on the hardest part. Really highlights that accidents can happen well within our comfort zone. The relative difficulty seems almost equivalent to me (or other people who climb as a hobby) falling on an approach scramble.
I think we can look at this from two points of view. One would be to condemn free soloing but this should also entail us condemning some approach scrambles. The second would be to accept that the edge of risk is a blurred line and look at mitigating risk where possible but also not using black and white safety statements. Maybe placing that extra piece of pro on the easy runout to the anchors or turning the top out scrambled into a short pitch.
I can not condemn this free solo without feeling like a hypocrite when thinking about other moments in the mountains and I encourage others to reflect on these risks too. When some as strong as him falls on a relatively easy pitch it feels more like a story about every day risks than one of hubris