NBC talks about the dangers of Freeskiing

[Game Over]

if anyone in the world knows and understands what is in these skiers minds pushing them its Robb Gaffney.

i cant see how people have issue with these very relevant points. camera courage has been know about for decades, throw money in the mix and people will do things that they would never even think of doing for just fun.

[SKIORFORGETIT]

i cant see how people have issue with these very relevant points. camera courage has been know about for decades, throw money in the mix and people will do things that they would never even think of doing for just fun.

this.right.here.

[strawjack]

^yes.

fuck, i'm the late 80's gen when "extreme" skiing was coined. we all hated the term! but we all knew the kids that had the 'kodak courage' and not the skilz to back it up. thankfully i have not lost any of my friends.

[old goat]

Is it people pushing the limits on their own, or is it the sponsors? I say both--if you want to make a name for yourself you have to do something that no one else is doing. (That's true in any field, including my profession, which is [was] surgery--except in surgery you get to risk someone else's life.) And yes, most of these folks would be doing it for free if they weren't making a living from it. At my advanced age I still get a thrill skiing something that scares me, even if what scares me would be child's play for almost all of you. Risking death is what young (and not so young) men (and women) do--it's the main reason we have wars. So top level skiing can be dangerous, football is dangerous, and most of us get our jollies watching someone else do it, which beats having them send your ass to some god-forsaken place to get shot at.

[Steven S. Dallas]

I have a feeling we'll be seeing more of this kind of coverage as the healthcare mandate kicks in.

Good call. Obama's fingerprints were all over this segment.

[Lindahl]

Nobody pushed Shane into taking things too far, that was just Shane being Shane and if not for that personality, skiing might not look quite the same as it does today. The people who excel in a dangerous sport like skiing are the ones who want to see how close they can get to the flame without getting burned. When people engage in that sort of behavoir, someone eventually gets hurt or dies. Dr. Gaffney might want to talk about the brain chemisty of risk takers and how that is what pushes them to do stuff that might kill them rather than try to blame an industry guilty of nothing more than enabling. You know damn well Shane would've been out there doing the same shit on his own for nothing more than the thrill of it. I have good friends who ski sketchy, fall and you will die lines by themselves, with nobody watching for no other reason than they get off on it. If you really dig deep into the psychology behind it, one could argue that skiing is just an outlet and if not skiing, these people would be engaging in other high risk activities that could kill them because for some people, staring down death is the ultimate natural high.

+1

The objective danger of avalanches aside, death (or life) is rarely on the line with the stuff I ski, and the way I ski, but certainly major injury can be. However, I take lots of risks in many other areas of my life as well. For example, I do a lot of canyoneering and solo backpacking/mountaineering, including lots of unroped low class 5 stuff. The riskiness of these activities is part of my fundamental/psychological draw towards them. Regardless of if I'm talented enough, I have no desire to seek sponsers, or win prizes, just a desire to be outside and feel alive by the challenge brushing up against death/injury - that rush. I love to climb, but I don't like roped climbing as much, as it often feels "too" safe, and my focus and enjoyment just isn't the same. As time has gone by, my abilities and confidence has increased, as have the consequences, despite being solo most of the time.

I don't think it's always media, fame or fortune (the corporate engine) that pushes people even further, but can also be good ole natured one-upmanship and groupthink. I have noticed that my risk tolerance goes up a bit when others are around, even if a camera is not at the ready.

I've noticed, based on my summer/fall adventures, that some of the stuff I've done doesn't seem as risky anymore, so I step it up even more. When you add in the good ole natured one-upmanship and group think effects, it can go even further. Eventually, you approach the 'Death Zone'. For some, media, fame or fortune, will have the same effect. Maybe not for everyone, but for some it will. I believe this is what Gaffney meant.

And, reguardless of how we're getting to the 'Death Zone' (self-improvement, one-upmanship, media/fame/fortune), the industry is getting there, and Gaffney seems to be acknowledging that we may need to do something about it before it gets really bad - why wait for a large number of deaths in one season to self-correct the direction that the industry is going in.

Of course NBC is focusing on the more wide-reaching motiviations of media/fame/fortune - so Johnny-on-the-couch can relate to it. He certainly isn't relating to one-upmanship or self-improvement.

[Game Over]

edit-fuck it im done

[thehaze]

agree BUT what if thats your way of making a living to support your family and kids.... for example, shane, thats how he made his money to live a nice life style.......you dont just dial back and except some $8.50 hour job... doesnt work that way........would be very hard to do and leave that type of life style...........

Knowing yourself as a person who likes to take those risk, you don't have kids..quite simple, isn't it? and if it "happens" and you wanna be a good father you stop, otherwise you keep pushin'it...

About the point, i think that manymore haven't really understand what Robb wanted to say about sponsorship...personally i don't think that the corporation are pushing directly the athlets, it's the whole marketing and hype that was created, to push always more and more people to do this thing in a verry subtle way.
We see so many death because there are so many peolpe doing this, much more than 20 years ago...and that because of the marketing, and also thanks to the technical improvement, that make skiing the backcountry much easier.
These to me are the main causes of the increase in the death stats, but i would add one idea that may not be true for some but can be for other..and is that the whole society sucks badly, and someone can by this give to his life less importance than if he were living a much more easier and happier life, and this can push him to risky his life more easily, again in a subtle way.

[Dantheman]

i cant see how people have issue with these very relevant points. camera courage has been know about for decades, throw money in the mix and people will do things that they would never even think of doing for just fun.

The points are relevant, but it's not so cut-and dry when: a) The cameras weren't rolling when CR and Sarah took their fatal falls (I don't know about Arne); and b) Shane's own wife says in the piece that Red Bull never pushed him into anything.

[Dantheman]

Also, I find it a bit odd that Robb says all his ski heroes from growing up are still alive, when so many pioneers and big names from previous generations are dead. Doug Coombs, Craig Kelly, Trevor Petersen, many (most?) of the original euro steep skiers, just to name a few.

[Wolfmansbro]

The interview touched on this a bit but let me throw my 2 cents in.

I think the interview was a bit of a warning/wake up call to the Up and Comers. Lots of tragic accidents have occurred in the last few yeas. But what is going to happen to the young kids who are growing up with this. Will they need to push the sport further yet? These were all seasoned vets that died. But if a kid wants to be a "sponsored athlete" does that mean they also need to push the sport further?

The bar has been pushed exceptionally high the last couple of years. Look at how much has changed.

There is an acceptable level of risk for Skiing and any sport. But if we keep pushing the sport does that mean we are just increasing the risk for the next generation. I kind of think that's what this interview was about.


We all grew up with "sponsored" skiers throwing daffy's, 360 with a cross, and even backflips and frontfips on straight skis. Now in order to enter the spot light the kids need to be doing this over cliffs and in no fall zones, all at the same time.

[Game Over]

The points are relevant, but it's not so cut-and dry when: a) The cameras weren't rolling when CR and Sarah took their fatal falls (I don't know about Arne); and b) Shane's own wife says in the piece that Red Bull never pushed him into anything.

they were training to stay at the top of their game because it was not only for glory it was a job. their livelihood depended on it.

look at the number of factors involved. so many sponsors actually offering money not just free shit, film spots, tv spots, mags... free trips to exotic places. a lot more to loose today than 15 years ago if you cant keep up.

Also, I find it a bit odd that Robb says all his ski heroes from growing up are still alive, when so many pioneers and big names from previous generations are dead. Doug Coombs, Craig Kelly, Trevor Petersen, many (most?) of the original euro steep skiers, just to name a few.

edit- good point, but i think Coombs could almost be lumped in to the group he's talking about

[FreakofSnow]

Yeah yeah, we're all above the media and the percieved hierarchy that we sit on the top of

How about instead of focusing on stylistic choices of the network, we take a minute and think about just who it is saying what he's saying. Someone who knew very personally every single one of the people he's talking about, has skied more sketchy lines competently than most people here, was personally responsible for a project who's sole purpose was to bring back the 'fun' in skiing, and is a pretty bright guy who's seen more sides of the ski industry than most of you are ever likely to.

It ain't brian williams saying this shit. It's Rob fucking Gaffney. Just consider for a moment that he might have some very good reasons for thinking the way he does, and the full explanation doesn't fit into a nice 9 minute segment.

Enough said

We all grew up with "sponsored" skiers throwing daffy's, 360 with a cross, and even backflips and frontfips on straight skis. Now in order to enter the spot light the kids need to be doing this over cliffs and in no fall zones, all at the same time.

Great point

[MTT]

They were on that terrain having fun. Do the community a favor and shoot yourself.

JONG!!!!

Look at the list of names of who was there. If they were not there to shoot some film, I'll eat my hat.

Go fuck your self

JONG

[splat]

I interviewed Shane for a piece in powder about the changing of the name from extreme skiing to freeskiing ten or more years ago. He wanted the clarification made for a couple reasons, 1) to make sure people understood that the term extreme skiing meant 'fall you die' and 2) that freeskiing was what we did when we simply skied for fun.

This was after Shane and Kreitler convinced the industry that skiers in these pursuits needed sponsorships to enlarge the scope of those pursuits. Shane knew this is where the sport was heading and sold the industry on increasing sponsorships, convincing them they would recoup sponsorship investments in sales. The tag 'extreme' was too much for sponsorship money to want to get involved. It needed to be tamed down so the industry wasn't seen so much as endorsing death wish activities.

Over time the differentiation has become less noticeable, the comps a bit more extreme, and newsworthy pursuits required more risk to sate the appetites of readers and viewers. The sport evolved and appealed to more skiers. With the increased number of participants, increased competitiveness at every level followed and the numbers of deaths correspondingly increased. Paul Ruff's death attempting to set the world record huck at Kirkwood was one of the first in the trend. You see it in backcountry/slackcountry avalanche deaths, competition deaths, base jump/wingsuit deaths and plain old everyday skiing deaths. People want to achieve almost superhuman feats of accomplishment for the glory or they just want the thrill, the rush or the serenity of doing them.

There is no preparatory course and badge to certify whether someone is capable of, or should be allowed to, jump off a 300 foot cliff, ski a gnarly chocolate chip couloir, ski five feet of freshly fallen snow in the b/c without digging a pit, fall 40-50 feet to the bottom of an icy pipe or overshoot a 150 foot kicker tranny to hard as steel flat. Those are individual choices and many among us think only a complete idiot could not, in his mind, associate the inherent risk. Whether those risks are taken for either personal gratification, glory or sponsorship are known only to those who make them.

But one thing I do know - it will be damn near impossible now to dial back the desires of many in the sport to go hudger than the last guy, to push the limits even further and maybe even risk death to become a momentary internet or ski movie hero. Twenty years ago, this was the realm of a select few. Now, the gates are open for just about anybody to give it a go. If people could buy an indie race car for a couple grand, we'd see an astonishing death rate increase in that sport as well. Do we do these things to be acknowledged, to feel whole, to feel free, to be sponsored...or to simply do something that looks fun? I don't know. But I feel the reasons rest only inside the souls of the participants.

[MTT]

Well put Splat.

And I cannot think of anything that should be (Done)? to limit the risk taking, other than say out loud, HEY DUDE what are you doing!!

Is that smart? Some like to put themselfs into situations where there coulde (Likely) be a bad outcome. It's a bit high to roll the dice and win.

But They need to understand that some of the thing being done are a roll of the dice. Its even beyound the point of Human error. Athletes are now getting into situations where the environment could kill them at any time.

[powder11]

kodak courage is for yahoos with no skills. I would not say any of the deceased being discussed suffered from Kodak courage and it's pretty fucking insulting for anyone to insinuate that was the case. These guys were professionals and entertainers for people like you and me. Lets not forget that the modern "freeskiing" movement was/is athlete driven. People like Shane, Dav, Kreitler, Nobis, Mike Douglas, Shane Szocs, etc... pretty much pushed a lame duck industry into the direction it is today. None of you would be out ripping around on the equipement your on if it were not for the serious risk taking that went into developing the technology. What if Shane had passed in a fall from skiing that face on water skis? Would we have ever seen the Spatula, Pontoon and all the other designs that are a direct result?

I respect Robb Gaffney and his opinion, but I think he is a little too close emotionaly to be an objective expert opinion. It hurts bad when the best in the business is your good buddy and he passes away doing something super risky in the name of sponsor recognition. We can all point the fickle finger of blame, but the bottom line is that Shane and others like him drove the industry. Sponsors were simply reacting to what was going on and what Shane was doing had absolutley zero margin for error. Skiing is, was and always will be a dangerous activity.

[GoNads]

Nobody pushed Shane into taking things too far, that was just Shane being Shane and if not for that personality, skiing might not look quite the same as it does today. The people who excel in a dangerous sport like skiing are the ones who want to see how close they can get to the flame without getting burned. When people engage in that sort of behavoir, someone eventually gets hurt or dies. Dr. Gaffney might want to talk about the brain chemisty of risk takers and how that is what pushes them to do stuff that might kill them rather than try to blame an industry guilty of nothing more than enabling. You know damn well Shane would've been out there doing the same shit on his own for nothing more than the thrill of it. I have good friends who ski sketchy, fall and you will die lines by themselves, with nobody watching for no other reason than they get off on it. If you really dig deep into the psychology behind it, one could argue that skiing is just an outlet and if not skiing, these people would be engaging in other high risk activities that could kill them because for some people, staring down death is the ultimate natural high.

Nailed it. For some athletes it really is an addiction, regardless of a camera being present or not they're going to keep pushing their own limits to see how far they can take it. It's why they're the best, they're constantly pushing themselves and pushing the boundaries of whats possible. They do it for themselves, for that satisfying tingling feeling after nailing a new trick, new line, bigger huck.. and it doesn't compare to anything else. It's like a drug, and to get the same fix or adrenalin high I find I have to go bigger to get the same rush or feeling of satisfaction. Am I calculated in my risk taking? Of course. There is a time and a place to send it when conditions align, and there is your "gut feeling" which I feel like it is a "get out of jail free card" which tells you when to back down when things are less than ideal or sketchy.

These people are not doing it for the money. It's for the love, passion and addiction to a sport and feeling that is so amazing and incomparable to anything else in the world. Probably combined with an A-type driven personality that is always trying to be the best they can be, and constantly improve and better their performance and abilities.

You could get killed walking across the street by a drunk driver, or from cancer.. or a million other things. I don't see anything wrong with taking CALCULATED risks under ideal circumstances and taking steps to reduce potential hazards and dangers. Yes, there is a slim chance it might kill you, but people also die skiing 20km an hour getting hit by other skiers or in awkward flukey falls in which the head or neck strike the ground at just the right angle to cause massive trauma or death. Do you want to live inside a bubble your entire life and make it to 80 scar-free? You know what they say, the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long.

[splat]

You're right, Toby. Some of us like to skate on thin ice and some of us like to skate close it it. Either could die due to a miscalculation or unseen factors. But some people see fame and money in it and those motivating factors can't be ignored.
The reasons rest within each individual, not within any generalizations. I think it's a little different for the pros as compared to, say, younger up and comers who might think "If I could get some awesome footie on my GoPro, maybe I could get sponsored."
But is Doc Gaffney saying the pros are being pushed to go further to maintain sponsorship payments?
That's the question begging for an answer, I guess.

[Game Over]

kodak courage is for yahoos with no skills. I would not say any of the deceased being discussed suffered from Kodak courage and it's pretty fucking insulting for anyone to insinuate that was the case.

i was not saying that they suffered from kodak courage. i was just using it as a example of something that pushes people to do things they would otherwise not do.

But is Doc Gaffney saying the pros are being pushed to go further to maintain sponsorship payments?
That's the question begging for an answer, I guess.

of course they have to go further. its a given-> simple progression.

[splat]

So, the conclusion is that if someone wants to get or maintain a sponsorship, they must be willing to risk life and limb?
Then the doctors point is valid.

[strawjack]

Also, I find it a bit odd that Robb says all his ski heroes from growing up are still alive, when so many pioneers and big names from previous generations are dead. Doug Coombs, Craig Kelly, Trevor Petersen, many (most?) of the original euro steep skiers, just to name a few.

ya, i don't know how old he is, but i'm thinking those are more peers than hero's. maybe a schmidt, day, and those before them and euro's like sudan and vallencant...who passed but not skiing.

i was not saying that they suffered from kodak courage. i was just using it as a example of something that pushes people to do things they would otherwise not do.

yes, that is what i was referring to also. for the new kids coming up...certainly possible. i know just for my own kids sake i don't want them pushing it that far.

from my perspective this has nothing to do with shane, or the recent accident in washington. those were both freak events by calculated individuals. shit happens.

[powder11]

You're right, Toby. Some of us like to skate on thin ice and some of us like to skate close it it. Either could die due to a miscalculation or unseen factors. But some people see fame and money in it and those motivating factors can't be ignored. The reasons rest within each individual, not within any generalizations. I think it's a little different for the pros as compared to, say, younger up and comers who might think "If I could get some awesome footie on my GoPro, maybe I could get sponsored."
But is Doc Gaffney saying the pros are being pushed to go further to maintain sponsorship payments?
That's the question begging for an answer, I guess.

A mutual friend of ours was told by a reputable film crew that if he stomped a certain line, which two well known pros have crashed hard on, that he would be pretty much guarranteed a segment in the next film. Our good buddy went to scope the line and came to the conclusion that it's not possible to stick from the approach these guys took and decided he did not want to risk injury/death trying for himself. He did see another approach to the same line and is studying it like an engineer to see if it's really doable for him, as well as film worthy, before he even gets on top of it, so it's not like the up and comers are just throwing themselves down shit to hopefully get a spot in the next big movie. Maybe that happens in the ridiculous gopro youtube world, but not in the professional world being discussed here. If people understood the amount of time and effort most of these guys put in for little to no monetary return, then Gaffney's point would be moot.

[Game Over]

A mutual friend of ours was told by a reputable film crew that if he stomped a certain line, which two well known pros have crashed hard on, that he would be pretty much guarranteed a segment in the next film. Our good buddy went to scope the line and came to the conclusion that it's not possible to stick from the approach these guys took and decided he did not want to risk injury/death trying for himself. He did see another approach to the same line and is studying it like an engineer to see if it's really doable for him, as well as film worthy, before he even gets on top of it, so it's not like the up and comers are just throwing themselves down shit to hopefully get a spot in the next big movie. Maybe that happens in the ridiculous gopro youtube world, but not in the professional world being discussed here. If people understood the amount of time and effort most of these guys put in for little to no monetary return, then Gaffney's point would be moot.

how does this not prove Gaffney's point?

[Mofro261]

But is Doc Gaffney saying the pros are being pushed to go further to maintain sponsorship payments?
That's the question begging for an answer, I guess.

In any sport/profession, there is pressure to stay on top as that young up and comer is looking for a piece of the pie and the one on your plate looks the best. Those pros and idols we look up to only became so because they were able to displace someone else and then hold on to it as long as possible before being displaced themselves by new blood with increased skills. When you achieve a level where you are being paid to do what you love most, most people will do what is necessary to hang on to that, be it for money or for ego.