Contrasting Two Transitions from Climbing to Rappelling to Study Tradeoffs

(This post may contain affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links and make a purchase, I’ll receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows us to continue to make videos like this. Thank you for the support!)

The day I typed this, I did a “live” stream on YouTube. Over the course of that stream, we got into a conversation about hyperbolic - or absolutist - takes on climbing considerations. I’m talking about the types of statements “always do this” and “never do that.” While there are a few of these truisms in climbing, such as “always buddy check your partner before starting up a climb,” there aren’t nearly as many as it often appears.

“We always belay a following climber from the anchor, not our harness.” What if the gear we placed is suspect, adding in a “dynamic” human being between the anchor and the load might make sense.

“We should never lack redundancy in an anchor.” What about slinging a tree?

As we talked in this live stream, I pointed out how I try to avoid those “always” and “never” statements, and I certainly try to avoid hyperbole like “you’ll die if…”

This video is kind of a case in point. This video shows two very different methods for transitioning from climbing to rappelling. There are also many more than these two ways to do this, but these two methods contrast, nicely. The point of the video isn’t to say “do this, don’t do that.” The point of the video is “understand the strengths and weaknesses of your system choices.” Each method eliminates some risks but adds in others. When we choose systems, we choose risks that we need to confront and choose risks that we’ve eliminated from the equation.

Take a look and maybe think about other climbing systems that have more than one way of doing things. What risks are you adding in and what risks are you subtracting when you make one system choice over another?