zxcvzcxv wrote:
First, there are accidents. Second, if you call it free, there is the implication that it is actually without any ropes, right? The word 'solo' means alone, not without any ropes. So, free solo, to use the terms correctly, would mean that you were climbing without ropes or partners. Free would mean climbing without ropes. Of course, I defer to the misleading technical terms here. But I defy you to find top climbers always using ropes in training and not trying out the free solo once they master a certain level with ropes. However you slice it, it's a lot more dangerous to climb than run.
Solo in the context of climbing does mean that you're alone. But if you're alone.... there is no one to hold the other end of the rope. So there is no reason to have one. Honnold could tie a rope to his waist when soloing up El Cap but it wouldn't do him any good.
There is such a thing as rope soloing, which is when you fix a rope at the top, rappel down by yourself, and then climb up the rope. But that is not "free" climbing because you're climbing up a rope that is already there. Free climbing means you're taking the rope up with you. The person holding the other end is standing where you started climbing. When you fall, you fall until the rope catches on the anchor that is either at your feet (if you're lucky) or 15 feet below you (if you're not). But it's still catching you before you hit the ground... with some notable, rare, and unlucky exceptions.