TLDR: In June 1985, British climbers Joe Simpson and Simon Yates were descending Siula Grande in Peru when Simpson fell and shattered his leg. Yates spent 90 minutes holding Simpson’s weight before cutting the rope to save himself.
Simpson fell 150 feet into a crevasse and spent three days crawling back to camp with a broken leg. The 2003 documentary ends with their reunion and mutual respect.
What it doesn’t show: they weren’t close friends, they haven’t climbed together since, the climbing community is still split on whether Yates committed murder, and their “friendship” may be performance required by commercial success of the story.
For 90 minutes, Simon Yates held his climbing partner’s full body weight in a collapsing snow anchor on a Peruvian mountain in a storm.
Joe Simpson was dangling in free space over a cliff edge, unable to climb up because of frozen hands and a shattered leg. Yates couldn’t lower him further because the rope knot had jammed in his belay device. He couldn’t pull him up. He couldn’t see or communicate with him through the storm.
His anchor was failing. In minutes, they would both die.
Yates took out his Swiss Army knife and cut the rope.
Simpson fell 150 feet into a crevasse. Yates assumed he was dead and descended alone, believing he’d killed his climbing partner.
Three days later, Simpson crawled into base camp the night before Yates was leaving.
Forty years later, the climbing community still can’t agree: was cutting the rope murder or survival?
The Decision That Haunts Him
When the rope jammed, Yates faced an impossible situation. Simpson had been accidentally lowered over an unseen cliff edge. The knot connecting their two ropes was stuck in Yates’s belay plate. Simpson was suspended in darkness, unable to reach the rock face or climb the rope.
Yates was anchored in a hollow he’d dug in the snow. For 90 minutes, he held Simpson’s weight as the anchor slowly collapsed beneath him. He felt “small jerky steps” as friction lost the battle against gravity.
He had no way to communicate with Simpson through the storm. He couldn’t see him. He couldn’t lower him further. He couldn’t pull him up. The technical analysis is clear: if Yates hadn’t cut the rope, both men would have died.
When the blade touched the rope, the line “exploded” under tension.
Yates didn’t feel immediate guilt. He felt dissociative numbness, a common trauma response. Only silence. The weight was gone. He’d survived.
Then he had to climb down alone, believing he’d killed his friend.
The Crawl Nobody Believed Possible
Simpson fell 150 feet into a crevasse. He survived the fall with his leg already shattered from the earlier accident that started the whole crisis.
He spent three days crawling five miles back to base camp.
The psychological mechanism that saved him was what he later called a “split personality” or the “Third Man” phenomenon. A cold, rhythmic voice in his head issued instructions, converting agony into gamified objectives. This dissociative state allowed him to bypass the catastrophic pain of his leg, which he described as “having your leg broken again every time” he fell.
He had no food. No water except what he could melt. Sub-zero temperatures. Storm-force winds. A shattered leg that ground bone into his knee joint with every movement.
He crawled for three days, hallucinating, delirious, setting small goals: reach that rock, rest ten minutes, crawl to the next landmark.
He arrived at base camp the night before Yates and Richard Hawking (their base camp manager) were planning to leave.
The Reunion the Film Doesn’t Show
The 2003 documentary ends with the reunion, presenting it as a moment of relief and restored friendship.
The reality was more complicated.
Yates had spent days believing he’d murdered Simpson. He and Hawking had burned Simpson’s clothes in a symbolic act of mourning. Then Simpson appeared, spectral and barely alive, crawling into camp.
What the film omits is the two weeks that followed: transporting Simpson by mule and truck to Lima, organizing multiple surgeries, managing the return to the UK.
Simpson lost 42 pounds. He underwent six operations. He has permanent nerve and knee damage that eventually required total knee replacement.
This period was a profound test of their partnership. But it’s stripped from the documentary for a clean cinematic resolution.
The Friendship That Was Never That Close
A common misconception fostered by the documentary is that Simpson and Yates were deeply bonded lifelong friends.
They weren’t.
Their partnership was a “marriage of convenience” typical of the 1980s climbing scene. They teamed up because their ambitions and abilities matched. They were “promiscuous” in their climbing partners, working with whoever was available and competent.
They never went on another expedition together after Peru.
Simpson transitioned into a career as a writer and motivational speaker. Yates remained a climbing guide and professional mountaineer. By 2003, when Kevin Macdonald reunited them for the documentary, they hadn’t seen each other for ten years.
Their relationship is best described as “low-maintenance friendship” characterized by mutual respect but total lack of day-to-day connection. Between 2005 and 2026, they’ve had minimal contact.
The global success of “Touching the Void” forced them into a permanent association that neither necessarily desired. Simpson has admitted he wouldn’t have been able to find stability if he’d stayed in the “unhinged” world of elite mountaineering. He eventually married and retired from climbing in 2009.
Yates continued living a life defined by mountains, leading to a fundamental divergence in worldviews.
The Climbing Community: Still Split 40 Years Later
While the general public views Simpson’s survival as miraculous proof that Yates made the right decision, the hardcore climbing community has never fully agreed.
The criticism isn’t just about the cut itself. It’s about the decisions leading up to it: the lack of bivouac gear, the decision to summit in a storm, the “get the freak out” mentality of the descent.
Some climbers argue that cutting the rope was justified by the “doctrine of necessity” saving one life when both would otherwise be lost. Others argue the rope is a sacred bond, that climbers live or die together, and that more experienced mountaineers might have found creative solutions like passing the knot or escaping the belay.
The debate is complicated by “outcome bias.” Because Simpson survived, critics can argue the situation wasn’t truly hopeless. If Simpson had died, the debate would likely have been more severe, potentially involving legal investigation.
Simpson’s tireless defense of Yates has been the primary shield against this. Simpson argues he would have cut the rope himself if positions were reversed. But some elite climbers still argue Yates “gave up” too quickly.
The Burden of Being “The Rope-Cutter”
For Simon Yates, the Siula Grande incident didn’t end in 1985. It became the defining label of his professional life.
Despite being a highly accomplished climber with first ascents from the Arctic to Antarctica, he’s universally known as “the man who cut the rope.” This reputation has pursued him through his career as a speaker and guide, forcing him to address the ethics of the decision in every public appearance.
Within the professional climbing community, Yates remains respected. But he’s faced accusations of arrogance and lack of empathy, particularly after a 2015 incident where he criticized another climber on Sky TV.
Yates has also been vocal about his dissatisfaction with the documentary. He’s accused director Kevin Macdonald of “nasty” interviewing techniques and “cynical” editing. He felt the film focused too much on danger and served as “an advertisement warning why you shouldn’t climb,” missing the “magical moments” that drive mountaineers.
The making of “Touching the Void” may have done more to demoralize him than the mountain itself.
Simpson’s Retirement: The Myth of the Returning Warrior
Joe Simpson retired from climbing in 2009. He describes his survival story as fitting the cultural tradition of going into “Hades” and coming back, but at a heavy price.
His post-climbing life involves cabinet making and welding, disciplines where he has “no potential” but finds relief from the obsessional, “unhinged” nature of mountaineering.
He views the “selfishness” of mountaineering as a disease that nearly killed him and ruined his ability to maintain relationships. His survival, while celebrated, left him with lifelong physical burden and forced him to confront the “grief” of losing the only activity he truly lived for.
He rejects the “hero/villain” dichotomy entirely.
The Question with No Answer
Was cutting the rope murder or survival?
The technical answer is clear: if Yates hadn’t cut, both men would have died. The ethical answer depends on which framework you use.
If you believe the rope is a covenant and climbers live or die together, then Yates violated the sacred bond.
If you believe individual survival is paramount and the rope is a tool not a suicide pact, then Yates made the only rational choice.
If Simpson had died, would Yates be a murderer? The question haunts the story because we only think cutting was “okay” because Simpson survived. The ethics are determined by outcome, not intent.
Forty years later, the climbing community still can’t agree. And Simpson and Yates live with a permanent fracture between them, a friendship that never recovered, bound together by commercial success of a story neither can escape.
The rope was cut. The weight went away. But the void remains.
Touching the Void: Frequently Asked Questions
Did Simon Yates commit murder when he cut the rope?
Technically, no. If Yates hadn’t cut the rope, both men would have died. He held Simpson’s weight for 90 minutes as his snow anchor collapsed. The rope knot was jammed in his belay device, preventing him from lowering or pulling Simpson up. He couldn’t see or communicate with Simpson through the storm. The technical analysis is clear: cutting the rope saved at least one life when both would otherwise have been lost. However, the climbing community remains split 40 years later on the ethics of the decision.
Are Joe Simpson and Simon Yates still friends?
They have a low-maintenance friendship characterized by mutual respect but total lack of day-to-day connection. They weren’t close friends before the incident—their partnership was a marriage of convenience typical of 1980s climbing. They never climbed together again after Peru. By 2003, when reunited for the documentary, they hadn’t seen each other for ten years. Between 2005 and 2026, they’ve had minimal contact. The global success of Touching the Void forced them into a permanent association that neither necessarily desired.
How did Joe Simpson survive crawling back to camp?
Simpson crawled five miles back to base camp over three days with a shattered leg, no food, no water except what he could melt, in sub-zero temperatures and storm-force winds. He experienced what he called a split personality or Third Man phenomenon—a cold, rhythmic voice in his head that issued instructions, converting agony into gamified objectives. This dissociative state allowed him to bypass catastrophic pain and set small goals: reach that rock, rest ten minutes, crawl to the next landmark. He arrived the night before Yates was planning to leave.
What injuries did Joe Simpson suffer on Siula Grande?
Simpson shattered his leg in the initial fall that started the crisis. After being cut from the rope, he fell 150 feet into a crevasse. During his three-day crawl, his broken leg ground bone into his knee joint with every movement, which he described as having your leg broken again every time he fell. He lost 42 pounds, underwent six operations, and has permanent nerve and knee damage that eventually required total knee replacement.
Did Simon Yates face legal consequences for cutting the rope?
No. Because Simpson survived and publicly defended Yates’s decision, there was no legal investigation. Simpson has argued he would have cut the rope himself if positions were reversed. However, if Simpson had died, the situation would likely have involved legal investigation and potentially criminal charges. The debate is complicated by outcome bias—because Simpson survived, critics can argue the situation wasn’t truly hopeless.
Why did Simon Yates criticize the Touching the Void documentary?
Yates has accused director Kevin Macdonald of nasty interviewing techniques and cynical editing. He felt the film focused too much on danger and served as an advertisement warning why you shouldn’t climb, missing the magical moments that drive mountaineers. He’s also dissatisfied that the documentary became the defining label of his professional life. Despite being a highly accomplished climber with first ascents from the Arctic to Antarctica, he’s universally known as the man who cut the rope.
Why did Joe Simpson retire from climbing?
Simpson retired from climbing in 2009. He describes the selfishness of mountaineering as a disease that nearly killed him and ruined his ability to maintain relationships. His survival left him with lifelong physical burden and forced him to confront the grief of losing the only activity he truly lived for. He transitioned to cabinet making and welding, disciplines where he has no potential but finds relief from the obsessional, unhinged nature of mountaineering.
What decisions led to the Siula Grande disaster?
The criticism from the climbing community isn’t just about cutting the rope—it’s about decisions leading up to it: the lack of bivouac gear, the decision to summit in a storm, and the get the freak out mentality of the descent. Some elite climbers argue Yates gave up too quickly and that more experienced mountaineers might have found creative solutions like passing the knot or escaping the belay. The rope knot jammed in Yates’s belay plate after Simpson was accidentally lowered over an unseen cliff edge.
