Michael C Wirth

[Jim Davies]

On a good weekend day in the summer, how many people are going to climb or hike on one of the 14ers? If you would take that number and compare it to a town of similar size then would the death rate be comparable?

Death rates on 14ers are about 1 in 50,000 days (very approximate).
Overall, people live an average of about 30,000 days.
So, you could argue that climbing 14ers is SAFER than just existing, but that's clearly ridiculous. What's important is the age at which people die, which is much, much younger if they die in climbing accidents than if they expire in their sleep at age 80 in a retirement home.

[Been_Jammin]

It’s a wonderful thing that we don’t rely on the s**t talkers from 14ers to push what is possible in the mountains. Sit back and watch a bunch of gumbies ruin another thread from their cozy little arm chairs. I don’t think I’ve ever posted on a thread before but I have to point out the douchbaggery is top notch on 14ers. Cheers to the opinions of highly jealous people that glorify hike up mountains and then trash other peoples actual athletic accomplishments. Attaboy and girls!

Touche. M. Wirth (the skier not the Chevron CEO) is rad and pushing the limits. Hella entertaining to watch as a fan. Greats are always going to have haters.

[Aphelion]

It’s a wonderful thing that we don’t rely on the s**t talkers from 14ers to push what is possible in the mountains. Sit back and watch a bunch of gumbies ruin another thread from their cozy little arm chairs. I don’t think I’ve ever posted on a thread before but I have to point out the douchbaggery is top notch on 14ers. Cheers to the opinions of highly jealous people that glorify hike up mountains and then trash other peoples actual athletic accomplishments. Attaboy and girls!

That's just how armchair mountaineering works. Anybody who takes more risk than me is definitely a lunatic with a death wish, and anybody who takes less risk is a coward who needs to get out more. And if my willingness for risk has changed over time, that's because I've become wiser with age.

[14er_memer]

On a good weekend day in the summer, how many people are going to climb or hike on one of the 14ers? If you would take that number and compare it to a town of similar size then would the death rate be comparable?

Death rates on 14ers are about 1 in 50,000 days (very approximate).
Overall, people live an average of about 30,000 days.
So, you could argue that climbing 14ers is SAFER than just existing, but that's clearly ridiculous. What's important is the age at which people die, which is much, much younger if they die in climbing accidents than if they expire in their sleep at age 80 in a retirement home.

I think there's also different kinds of risks, and different levels of sustainability within those risks. If you climb Elbert 100 times what are the odds that 100 times you come home alive? What about Capitol, or the LB traverse? If you ski x face 100 times what are the odds you don't rip out the slope?

Lots of risks are okay once or twice because they are very low probability. (To finish the 14ers you only really have to be in exposed terrain 15 or so times)

Issue is if there are high consequence then they become less repeatable. This is a huge huge thing as a backcountry skier or alpinist to consider. You need to make sure your choices are repeatable, that if you did it 100 times you would be okay 100 times. Why? Because it's a long life and you will go skiing a lot of times. The same applies to 14ers. (However I think the probability of disaster on the average 14er hike is lower than when dealing w/ risks associated with skiing, alpine climbing etc.) This is why I stay under 30° most of the winter, I'd like to be doing this a long time and I don't believe taking in the higher risk of assessing and skiing midwinter snow is usually worth the long term consequences.

This btw is also the reason most backcountry ski accidents are experienced skiers. They have been doing it a long time and risk is cumulative. Mathematically each time you go out, disaster is a little more likely as you expand your sample set. The the slide last year on the battleship as an example.

Then the concept of normalization of deviance comes into play. Experienced users normalize a higher and higher level of risk based on a lack of negative feedback. "I did this and was safe last time, so it'll be safe next time too" Issue is yours still dealing with a low probability but high consequence risk, and you just don't realize it because our own experience tends to override what we learn in a classroom. They don't see in a surface level that maybe it's safe 9/10 times but the tenth time it won't be. Only way to deal with that is have some very firm risks you won't ever accept - and only the individual can decide what those are.

Normalzation of Deviance means odds of surviving literally go down over time as you accept lower and lower levels of risk sustainability. Not just because of cumulative risk, but also accepting higher and higher levels of risk. Maybe now the risks you are taking are only safe 70/100 times - how long till you trip over the edge and hit that 71st time?

But then it's messy because to achieve at a high level you must accept higher risks. You want to SKI all the 14ers? How man times can you ski capitol safely? Can you ski the Landry like 100/100 times? That's a much higher level of risk and yeah you get the point. What are you willing to compromise in the name of experience, accomplishment etc? Because end of the day no matter how experienced you are your still just as vulnerable to the consequences of risk acceptance

[blazintoes]

My mamma always says that if you don't have anything nice to say well, come sit next to me. America's favorite past time is gossip. I found out about Wirth when looking at the FKT website and seeing that he has the Elks traverse time that will be untouchable for some time. Being able to move that fast over that terrain is beyond impressive. What's next for him? The biggest adventures hide in the uncertainty.

Having the courage to come on here and posting as you did was brave. While I agree with your assessment of a few posters who tend to troll and/or abuse their platform on the dot com overall after being a member here for a decade now I come back because either I learn or feel I can help. I've stressed many times that 14ers.com is an amateur hiking website and sometimes goes down these rabbit holes and you have many choices when this happens. Don't get mad, get glad.

And now my soap box with a quote from Frankl "Between stimulus and response lies a space. In that space lie our freedom and power to choose a response. In our response lies our growth and our happiness."

My quote: The more clearly we view our thoughts, we can decide what to engage with and what to let go of. Let it go. Wirth is gonna do what Wirth wants to do!

[lodgling]

It’s a wonderful thing that we don’t rely on the s**t talkers from 14ers to push what is possible in the mountains.

Agreed. Or the aforementioned professional skier, I might add.

Mathematically

I'm not sure you can mix the different kinds of risk involved in an effort like this, but have at it. Based solely on watching the video of the ski down, climbing this ski route seems like a calculated decision -- it is not just a fully filled couloir at all.

And to do it alone involves different type of risk assessment and reward altogether. Until you have done it (or even then), I think it is tough to question wholly personal decisions. This MCW character seems pretty bad ass and inspiring to me. Oh well.

[timewarp01]

This btw is also the reason most backcountry ski accidents are experienced skiers. They have been doing it a long time and risk is cumulative. Mathematically each time you go out, disaster is a little more likely as you expand your sample set.

This is the definition of the gambler's fallacy. Risk does not accumulate when you have multiple accident-free days.

[14er_memer]

This btw is also the reason most backcountry ski accidents are experienced skiers. They have been doing it a long time and risk is cumulative. Mathematically each time you go out, disaster is a little more likely as you expand your sample set.

This is the definition of the gambler's fallacy. Risk does not accumulate when you have multiple accident-free days.

I mean yes true - but that's not really what I'm pointing out. Rather more time spent in risky situations means more exposure to risk. More exposure/time more likelihood. Not that the event itself increases likelihood. More time in a car, more likely to experience an accident. More time at a baseball game, more likely to see a home run etc.

Obviously previous batters don't impact that likelihood, but you being in the same place in right field increases your chances of catching a home run. If you sit in the nosebleeds you are never able to catch anything. Same concept applies to avy terrain and decision making. More time in avy terrain, more likelyhood of getting slid. So bet make sure when you are in avy terrain you feel good about the risk and the personal patterns you set. Maybe don't make a habit of being in right field when the team slugger is up and further just because he didn't hit last time doesn't mean he won't next time. Past experiences can't always prove that a certain set of circumstances is safe. This is essentially survivors bias

My point in the end was more an observation of how the ways we engage/don't engage with risk should be sustainable than a continuation of critiquing MCW, and it's hard to calculate a real world likeness of an accident. This is stuff we are all vulnerable to - It's theoretical but it illustrates a larger point.

[aholle88]

Part of being one of the best at something is having critics. And there sure are a lot on here. His accomplishments are very impressive and while there may be some lessons learned from the individual decision making process and risk tolerances, this probably deserves more respect than it is getting. He is an exceptional athlete pushing boundaries that most on here cannot even fathom of doing. Jealousy is a powerful thing. I wish I had the fitness that this man has and the free time to go after such a big goal. But instead I sit back and enjoy what I can do and have a deep appreciation for folks bending what is possible in the mountains. With progression comes risk. Anyone here ever see Doug Coomb's old videos? Owen Leeper? All the crazy snowboarders shredding spines in Alaska, setting off massive sloughs in every shot? Risk is part of the game if the reward you desire is to progress further than those that have come before. These folks understand the risks. Anyone on that level very well understands that every time they go out, it could be the last. They are okay with that. Just because you aren't, doesn't mean you need to rip them to shreds. Appreciate the progression, without it, we go nowhere.

[SnowAlien]

I've followed Michael on Instagram for some time because he was skiing the Elks in previous spring and I was interested in beta. He's definitely incredibly fast, and I agree that risk assessment changes with experience, so don't be judgey. My understanding that he's able to ski all these lines in Scarpa LT FT boots (which I struggled mightily last winter) unlike most athletes in that realm who prefer much stiffer boots - Technica Zero Gs for most and the Cody Townsend skis in Salomons (his sponsor). Just an interesting tidbit.
Btw, another athlete to look at is Paul Davis, @paul___davis, pretty rad dude.

[cottonmountaineering]

I've followed Michael on Instagram for some time because he was skiing the Elks in previous spring and I was interested in beta. He's definitely incredibly fast, and I agree that risk assessment changes with experience, so don't be judgey. My understanding that he's able to ski all these lines in Scarpa LT FT boots (which I struggled mightily last winter) unlike most athletes in that realm who prefer much stiffer boots - Technica Zero Gs for most and the Cody Townsend skis in Salomons (his sponsor). Just an interesting tidbit.
Btw, another athlete to look at is Paul Davis, @paul___davis, pretty rad dude.

thats interesting on the light weight boots, i wonder how much of a difference it actually makes skiing technical stuff

[Been_Jammin]

Dude is a crusher.