willstrickland Posted May 23, 2006 Posted May 23, 2006 (edited) Kaska, there is an implied competence with someone a climbing organization has designated a "leader". It is in no way similar to hooking up with a random cc.com person. Edited May 24, 2006 by Off_White
octavius Posted May 23, 2006 Posted May 23, 2006 (edited) All right, I'll back off Rockguy, before you backoff too far, will you answer the question about easy pro placement on the last pitch on YJT? You implied protecting that pitch is easy... what pro do you use there? Regards Edited May 24, 2006 by Off_White
gosolo Posted May 23, 2006 Posted May 23, 2006 (edited) Some climber lays in a hospital bed really f%%%ed up and some of you guys are more concerned about winning a useless and meaningless internet argument that pops up here what, every month? How about starting a new thread, something original like mounties dont teach good... Edited May 24, 2006 by Off_White
RuMR Posted May 23, 2006 Posted May 23, 2006 (edited) Post deleted by RuMR Edited May 24, 2006 by Off_White
eric8 Posted May 23, 2006 Posted May 23, 2006 (edited) the whole point is that you may get a jimwickwire or you might get a KK...you do the math that's total bullshit. and there's no difference between a noob deciding whether to climb behind a mountie he knows nothing about or hooking up with random CC-com people he knows nothing about either. it's up to anyone taking up this sport to do due diligence in picking climbing partners and as for the follower putting their life in the hands of the "inexperienced leader" - that cuts two ways - the leader is putting their life in the hands of the inexperienced follower - a much more dangerous proposition. and as for your typical asshole comments, go yourself, dickhead. Except someone with experience will be able to pick an objective they are comfortable climbing and be able to make an assessment on there partners skill level after having a 5 minute conversation with them. The beginning mountaineers rely on the mountaineers to do that for them. On climbs that are to difficult for them to do without the "leader". Also the mountaineers don't exactly teach self realience. They teach people how to handle specific situations which isn't bad but don't confuse it with the ability to adapt to different situations. Finally, what your saying is that it is a shitty deal for both the leader and the follower? Since often both are inexperience couldn't agree more. Edited May 24, 2006 by Off_White
Off_White Posted May 23, 2006 Posted May 23, 2006 Ahhh, just STFU all ya'll, I'm locking this thread. Really sorry to hear about the guy, I'm hoping things start to look up. Apologies to the friends and family for the squabbling debacle here.
Off_White Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Okay, I spawned this off from it's inappropriate location in the Accident at Leavenworth thread, and edited some to change the thread title to differentiate this brawl from the thread of origin. You can have your toy back now, carry on.
AlpineK Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Ok let me tell you what I really think. Anyone who thinks there's a mounties lodge in the Icicle is a dumbfuck The mounties are the epic masters. I was in the mounties but I quit them a long time ago. My first expeience climb was with a leader who couldn't climb 5.2 (seriously) and refused to give up the lead. We spent an extra night out because of that idiot. My main climbing partner when I was starting out took the mounties class and on an experience climb on Adams they lost 1 tent and spent an extra night out. Just last year I helped rescue some mountie dude who fell on a 5.4 at the Tieton. I've heard thousands of other mountie epics. Rudy's comments earlier in this thread are spot on. The idea that someone who's been through the basic course the year before instructing new climbers is fucking stupid. The mounties have a large role in climbing history around here, but they hopefully have next to no role in the future of NW climbing. Death to the uber bureaucratic climbing club.
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 I was on a Mounties climb once where the “leader” placed no less than 20 pieces of protection on the second pitch of Ingalls Peak—took him over an hour to finish the pitch... This memory still pisses me off today as my wife was the basic student at the end of this “leaders” rope. Please explain to me how leading a pitch on Ingalls slowly with lots of pro is endangering the follower. Still waiting for an answer to this one. Since when is zipping up an easy route "dangerous" to the follower? The only way I could think of it is if you take so damn long that bad weather rolls in or you have to rappell in the dark.
KaskadskyjKozak Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Death to the uber bureaucratic climbing club. There's the rub: the real reason you all hate the mounties and blast them non-stop. Hey, that's cool, but be honest about it.
Pencil_Pusher Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Like they say, it's easier to criticize than actually trying to make a difference.
AlpineK Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Death to the uber bureaucratic climbing club. There's the rub: the real reason you all hate the mounties and blast them non-stop. Hey, that's cool, but be honest about it. I have a lot of other things I hate, so I'm afraid I don't have time to bash them non stop... dumbshit
AlpineK Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Maybe someday you'll move up from brain dead to dumb.
EWolfe Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Classic yellowjacket. Sting without determining threat.
catbirdseat Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Except someone with experience will be able to pick an objective they are comfortable climbing and be able to make an assessment on there partners skill level after having a 5 minute conversation with them. The beginning mountaineers rely on the mountaineers to do that for them. On climbs that are to difficult for them to do without the "leader". I might as well address Eric8's comment. The Everett Branch handles this differently than other branches. All climb signups are with the leader. No one can sign up for a climb unless the leader allows it. Leaders are encouraged to talk on the phone with the person to get a sense of their fitness to be on the climb.
eric8 Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 I was on a Mounties climb once where the “leader” placed no less than 20 pieces of protection on the second pitch of Ingalls Peak—took him over an hour to finish the pitch... This memory still pisses me off today as my wife was the basic student at the end of this “leaders” rope. Please explain to me how leading a pitch on Ingalls slowly with lots of pro is endangering the follower. Still waiting for an answer to this one. Since when is zipping up an easy route "dangerous" to the follower? The only way I could think of it is if you take so damn long that bad weather rolls in or you have to rappell in the dark. exactly or re-read alpinek's post
catbirdseat Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 Ok let me tell you what I really think. Anyone who thinks there's a mounties lodge in the Icicle is a dumbfuck It was Keith and he's a nice guy. You shouldn't be calling him names like that. He was probably tirpping on something interesting when he heard someone talking about Mountie Lodges.
ken4ord Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 (edited) The Mounties lead A LOT of climbs. So does RMI. Both have incidents every year. If you look at the past ten years (past year is meaningless statistically), the Mounties have not had an abnormal number of accidents. If I recall correctly, last year an RMI party required assistance too from a client falling and pulling the guide down as well. I guess I should wonder about them too. Oh, and if you say the Mounties are unsafe, what about Jim Wickwire? We can take statistics anywhere. Sheesh. but gary, their policy of having former students (with minimal experience after their first round of classes) teach new students is just asking for trouble...couple that with inflexible dogma about how things MUST be done and you are really courting disaster... The other thing that i have serious issues with, is that they are so damn focused on the technicalities (wrong word) of climbing that they don't teach the actual act of climbing very well...maybe if they spent a wee bit more time on this aspect of climbing (how to climb, and this is really where last year's class is woefully unprepared to teach this years class), we would see less of these "slips" on 3rd and 4th class terrain. Dirty harry is not far off the mark about 5.4 technique being the protection for 5.4 climbing...don't fall, you won't get smucked. several posters mentioned that (NOLSe i believe) that getting prepared on single pitch but harder terrain before venturing ontto multipitch is a good way...i agree Also, and i hate to sound like a punk so don't take this the wrong way, but some people just should not be climbers...just cuz you got the dollars does not mean you'll make a good climber... RuMR I agree with you that the Mounties really do need to focus more act of climbing, it is really sad that there are people out there that struggle with 5.4. I am not dissing people like that, I really think it is sad, and it would be nice if someone showed them how to climb better. A friend of mine used to guide this one NYC opera singer and the dude must have weighed at least 250 lbs and not athletic by any means, but he would still follow my buddy up the occasional 5.9 multi-pitch route. The other thing I also see that really debilitate new climber within the Mountie Org is the fear that they instill on new climbers. Everyone I have met from the Mounties has extreme "respect" for climbs, to the point that I think they are terrified certain climbs. Maybe it is an ego thing that the "leaders" play on the new climber on how difficult climbs are and such, who knows why, maybe it is just the organization, I don't know. Where I learned to climb we didn't have the Mounties, I am glad because I probably would have been a statistic and joined. I was scared shitless of heights and didn't have any balance when I started. Luckily I had friends that were in the same boat, none of us had much experience, but we all were learning together in a supportive atmosphere, instead of having some leader that tell us what was and was not possible as a new climber. We always encourged each other to push ourselves further, improve our skills and do it in a safe manner. We also just didn't rely on weekends, we would practice and read whenever we could, including the Mountie bible (I must have read that thing front to back a couple of times). Maybe if they spent time teaching their students climbing is not only a physical (movement of climbing) and mechanical (protection placing), but that climbing is also very mental sport there would less accidents. Maybe I am way off, but there is no need to be scared of these climbs, it is waste, better use that energy on useful thing like how to climb the route in a safe manner. Edited May 24, 2006 by Off_White
chris Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 (edited) Wow, can't believe I read through all of that. Can't believe even more that I'm posting too. Sick fuck that I am. Just as its unsafe to run-out a pitch just because its easy for the leader-instructor, it is also unsafe for a leader-instructor to inappropriately sew-up a moderate or easy crack. Both instances set a poor example to participants-students. Speed is safety, and a proper balance of risk with movement needs to be discussed, shown, and experienced. I have personally witnessed several instances where the Mounties overly conservative approach to a practice increased the level of risk instead of mitigating it. I think that the Mounties are great at teaching technical skills, but are weak in teaching judgement. Judgement is gained by experience - the more experience you obtain, and evaluate afterwards, the better your judgement becomes. That's why a NOLS or OB course mountaineering or rock climbing course is four weeks long - to give the participants time to learn the techniques, build some experience with a bank of climbs, develope some judgement by evaluating the experiences, and then repeat the cycle two or three more times. As a non-member (and not likely to become one), I have no idea what the Mounties instructional processes are like. But they seem to need to either a) introduce the idea of evaluating experience to develop proper judgement or b) require their beginning and intermediate members to gain more experiences before instructing. Edited May 24, 2006 by Off_White
korup Posted May 24, 2006 Posted May 24, 2006 (edited) Two things people don't seem to realize: 1. Leading is not a beginner, or even novice, skill. You should spend 2 (or even 3) full season cleaning boatloads of gear behind an experienced leader before you even think about leading. period. Cams have made the process seem trivial, when there is considerable nuance and experience involved. It isn't differential equations or advanced aeronautical enginnering, but it is damn serious, and the margin for error is small. 2. A beginner miltipitch does NOT exist. It's a freaking oxymoron. Edited May 24, 2006 by Off_White
Recommended Posts