Should You Link Climbing Pitches Together?

(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!)

I’m a little bit contrarian. It probably comes from an academic background in political science, and in particular the sub-discipline of political philosophy. (Eventually, I got my master’s degree in the more practical Public Policy, but my BA was in Political Theory). If there is one thing I learned through the formal study of philosophy (which actually started in high school, for me) it was most ideas have some kernel of wisdom in them, but most ideas also - if taken to their logical extreme - start to fall apart, become impractical, and fail to deal with unique circumstances.

All ideas have their limits. For instance, just take the basic notion of consequentialism: do the most good for the greatest number. Great. But what about time horizons. Are we defining good in the near term or the long term. If I say near term, I might want to formulate policies that maximize economic output. If I say the long term, I might take slower growth (and therefore slower rises in the standard of living) in exchange for sustainability.

Nuance matters.

And so it is that when I hear something like “linking pitches is faster because you have fewer time-sapping transitions,” my critical reflect starts tingling. Is it? Always? Hmmm…

When our climbing team is all anchored in, we are safe enough to deal with other issues, like twisted or kinked ropes, replenishing the leader’s rack, etc. When we are mid-climb, with the leader out on the sharp end, we are not in a position to deal with those - or myriad other - issues. The longer the amount of time we have with the leader on the sharp end, the longer the amount of time one of those things can go wrong. So, that speed we would gain from not having to transition could be eaten up by even the most mild of slow downs: extra rope drag from a winding route that is now sixty meters long, slowing down that lead climb; or a loss of good line of sight and communication, making us wait for a bit after the anchor is built before having the follower start climbing - just to be sure the belay is on; or a bunch of wind that is blowing the rope around and drowning out our calls to one another - calls we could hear at thirty meters but can’t hear at sixyt.

After all, we are only talking about a couple of minutes of transition time (it we know what we are doing at a transition).

And, again, the stakes are higher while the lead is on then when we are all clipped into the anchor. It’s not just about speed; it’s also about risk. Any of those minor problems become major ones. Do we have enough gear to place for a full rope length? If not, that could add risk very significantly and very quickly.

This is not to say I don’t link pitches, I do. There are times when it really does speed things up at little cost. Straight line, bolted route: no brainer. There are plenty of other circumstances, too. But just like the idea that consequentialism is a complete philosophy that works in every situation is short sighted, so is the idea that linking pitches is a shortcut to speed and safety. There are times it works and times it doesn’t. There are complicating factors that can make the call less straight forward.