Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 33 of total 33 in this topic |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Oct 31, 2005 - 12:25am PT
|
Tricksters and Traditionalists
A Look at Conflicting Climbing Styles
An excerpt from ASCENT 1984
by Tom Higgins
Climbing #86, October 1984
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 31, 2005 - 12:30am PT
|
once again, many thanks to Steelmnkey
|
|
aldude
climber
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2005 - 03:23am PT
|
Just to set the record straight,John originally rated the Bachar Yerian 5.11a A1. He included the A1 designation because he used aid in the form of skyhooks to place the bolts - a big no-no in Tuolumne at the time. He called it a mixed route and later proposed a letter grade prefix denoting first ascent style. M was for mixed,S was for sport - meaning top down inspection or rappel placed bolts and/or gear and no prefix for a pure ground up affair where the protection or rope were never weighted. This may seem laughable today but there was a time when boldness and style,especially on the all important first ascent,was paramount!
|
|
A Dzzl
Trad climber
Praha, Czech Republic
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2005 - 04:37am PT
|
If the first pitch of the BY is 11a then I am a monkey's uncle.
I think the designation of style was a fine idea, and the author of the above article has a good point about making the style known. For example, if you didn't know that some bolts at sandstone areas here in the CZ were placed on shoulder stands- and you tried to free these routes, thinking they were just bold because they were done so long ago, you could be in a very dangerous position. It would be obvious when you were climbing, but some climbs are such that you could be 15m up with no pro before it is evident.
|
|
A Dzzl
Trad climber
Praha, Czech Republic
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2005 - 04:37am PT
|
If the first pitch of the BY is 11a then I am a monkey's uncle.
I think the designation of style was a fine idea, and the author of the above article has a good point about making the style known. For example, if you didn't know that some bolts at sandstone areas here in the CZ were placed on shoulder stands- and you tried to free these routes, thinking they were just bold because they were done so long ago, you could be in a very dangerous position. It would be obvious when you were climbing, but some climbs are such that you could be 15m up with no pro before it is evident.
|
|
James
Social climber
My Subconcious
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2005 - 01:00pm PT
|
One of the best guidebooks written is the Pinnacle National Monuments guide by David Rubine. It contains highly detailed climbing information. On a route like Mechanic's Delight, a bolt ladder/free climb, Rubine has included exact information.
FA (prusik): Unknown, before 1955. FA (base): Jeff Foott, Steve Roper, 10/60. FFA: Barry Bates, Dave Hampton, 12/70. Bolts: 1/4" and 3/8" Star Dryvin on the ladder.
Rubine, David. "Climber's Guide to Pinnacles Naional Monument" 1995. Globe Pequot Press.
To have all this exact information at your disposal is difficult and time-consuming. It is necessary though to climb in good style. Being provided with this information helps keep the "tricksters" honest.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2005 - 01:17pm PT
|
Tricksters and Traditionalists
A Look at Conflicting Climbing Styles
An excerpt from ASCENT 1984
So glad you only excerpted this. LOL.
Usually I like your little gems.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
The West
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2005 - 05:04pm PT
|
Though it touches on a lot of pertinent stuff, I don't think this was one of Mr Higgins best.
Too bad this excerpt doesn't include the photos of perepetrators of alleged styles, as defined, that were included in the origianl text.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2005 - 06:23pm PT
|
Yes, pics of the "Wanted" desperados. Post em.
somehow I know Ouch! is going to give us what we all want instead. :)
|
|
Nate D
Trad climber
San Francisco
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2005 - 08:02pm PT
|
I'm in agreement with James on the very comprehensive Pinnacles guide. Details galore. Most, I imagine, could care less, but I think it's nice to have all the info.
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2005 - 09:40pm PT
|
This was a bad article when it was written and is just as bad today. Basically it unnaturally divides first ascent styles into two camps, free on the lead and everything else, good and evil. Easy for a granite slab climber to be so sanctimonious, dealing with low angle naturally clean rock, but for the New England climber dealing with fields of thick lichen and munge, or climbers from Utah and Colorado battling up tottering rockies limestone the situation was not so cut and dry. This article was written in 1984, and Higgens simply didn't seem to understand that climbing was changing, routes were getting much harder and bolder and even the range of media that were considered appropriate for climbing was becoming much more diverse. Climbers were living in an new era, but Higgins didn't understand that setting off up an overhanging potentially protectionless face in the Gunks or North Wales or Montserrat is a totaly differant proposition from some amorphous, climb anywhere granite slab. Furthermore the statement that prior to 1970 all routes were climbed in his so called traditional style is completely ridiculous, as is the notion that there is a shortage of rock available for first ascentionists to apply their trade. Basically when I read the article in 1984 I thought it was parochial in the extreme and displayed a deep lack of appreciation for what was going on in the broader climbing world at the time. The truth of the matter is that, a rappel inspection, a scary hang on a hook to drill a bolt, a quick hangdog, are techniques that allowed guys like Fawcett, Bacher, Yaniro and Berhault to take the climbing world by storm in the early 1980's producing routes that remain benchmarks for difficulty and boldness to this day.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2005 - 10:02pm PT
|
Jeremy wrote: "This article was written in 1984, and Higgens simply didn't seem to understand that climbing was changing, routes were getting much harder and bolder and even the range of media that were considered appropriate for climbing was becoming much more diverse."
Right on all counts but the "boldness" comment. On the main, the serious 2005 climber faces less risk than he or she did 30 years ago. And BTW, Higgins was a pretty good wide crack climber as well. He didn't just fiddle about on slabs. And some of the routes he did 40+ years ago, at Tahquitz, in old hard-soled shoes, still turn people away.
JL
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2005 - 10:43pm PT
|
I beg to differ Largo, routes such as Masters Edge, The Bells The Bells, or how about your old girlfriends Yellow Crack direct were extremely dangerous climbs with hard moves on steep rock ( with the pump building). I think that the routes of this period represented a high point for really bold climbing. ( Jerry Moffat said as much in several differant interviews), I know myself that the advent of sport climbing was such a relief because climbing just seemed to be getting more and more terrifying when you were pushing boldness as well as difficulty. However in some ways I take your point that thrashing up an off width in stiff soled shoes with a rack of bongs is just as much an excercise in fear. Pete Livesey once said that on british faces you got scared because you never knew what was coming up, but on Yosemite cracks you got scared because you knew exactly what was coming up. And remember we're talking about the early eighties here.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2005 - 11:47pm PT
|
Actually, Jeremy, I was talking about everything before the clip and go revolution, including the early 80s. The most perilous time in Yosemite was in the early 70s, before the polycentric (only the true hexes back then). Pitons were ruled out and the nuts of that few years were really bad. Some cracks had almost no bomber pro, the same ones you can totally stitch today. And climbing on Middle was grim as well in those old shoes. The difficulty wasn't high but the penalties for a mistake were dire.
JL
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
I agree that this may not have been Mr. Higgins finest writing. However, this article has been cited for the route of the word traditionalist now used in our sport. If true, then this article is much more important than anyone thought. Personally, these types of writings are now few and far between because few limit themselves to "traditional" as Tom wrote.
I cringe when people ask me if I trad climb. Why? For one it shows my age, and two, the word trad often times leaves out all bolted climbs, including the ones that were done in Tuolumne that Tom wrote about. I have heard many old school slab routes called sport, including Quartz Mtn OK, Dorsal Fin in LCC, Utah, etc.
I agree that in the late 70,s to early 80's, boldness was perhaps the KEY component to many routes of the day. At least it was that way in Utah...
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
I understand your point about danger, its the difference between driving around the Red Rocks loop in a Porsche at 140 mph, or tearing around in my old 92 Ford Festiva at 65, both are equaly dodgy. Nevertheless if you give me the option of thrashing up crack of Doom in my vibrams, or trying Masters wall on Cloggy with a rappel inspection, I know which one I'd choose.
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
Tom Higgins once wrote:
"In an article on face-climbing styles and standards in the 1982 American Alpine Journal, Bruce Morris reports that many climbers in Tuolumne now subscribe to 'the construction of a line of technical difficulty at almost any price.' He quotes 'notorious local Claude Fiddler,' who asks, 'How can a route be worthwhile unless 'questionable methods' were employed on its first ascent?'"
Please forgive me Claude! I was only kidding. T. Higgins was such a humorless guy he never realized that I meant the comment ironically. Vern & Claude have certainly done some hideous run-outs that would even make Mr. Higgins squirm.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 1, 2005 - 12:02pm PT
|
I don't think that Higgins and others are demanding boldness...
what they are demanding is an honesty in reporting what we climb, simple integrity. If we FA a route and bolt on hooks, I think they would say that we should mention this, as opposed to doing it ground up, on stance. Similarly, if we hangdog, rehearse, alter the rock , etc., etc., then we should fess up.
I think that is all they are saying. We should have a standard of climbing, and then report how close we adhere to it when we talk about accomplishments.
Simple.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Nice Dingus, I agree to a lot of what you're trying to say especially the one about boldness.
|
|
G_Gnome
Trad climber
Ca
|
|
I always put routes up in such a way that I would not be afraid to repeat them and that others would also enjoy my routes. As such they are generally quite popular. On the other hand, I also used to enjoy doing routes that were a bit *sportier* and always appreciated that some people were putting these up. Now that I have come to an understanding of my own personal fragility that comes from long heal times as I age, I enjoy more bolts not less. And yes, it seems everyone else does too, as Dingus has so well stated.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
The clip and go craze came none too soon for me. I went back to Suicide a few years ago, jumped up on a few old testpieces ("only 5.11") and scared the crap out of my own self. On some of those routes, once the climbing dipped to around 5.10b, the pro simply vanished. Don't see that too much these days. And I ain't looking for it neither . . .
JL
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
Tricksters and Traditionalists: author Tom Higgins responds to pro and con posts
 regarding, "I think the author ... has a good point about making the style known," referring to the article calling for complete descriptions of styles on first and first free ascents. Such information about the style of ascents, whether in guidebook histories or route descriptions, not only enriches the experience, history and lore of climbing, it provides some way to compare achievements across time. As the article states, "Contrary to cherished belief, climbing is a competitive sport. Climbing a route all free, with limited protection and on the first try means much more than climbing it after rehearsing moves or placing protection on rappel. Consequently, climbers should agree to reveal how new routes, particularly hard ones, were done. Only in this way can climbers test themselves by trying routes in the same or better style." Doesn't this notion still applies today, in spite of the popularity of bolted sport routes? Why else do recent guidebooks, such as to Mammoth and Red Rocks, list first ascent parties for sport routes if the finished route is the only thing that matters? Why do posts and scuttlebutt go around about how many falls, tension rests, pre-placements and days to completion were involved in first free ascents? And why else do we have terms such as redpoint, flash and the like if we no longer care how routes are done, whether protected by bolts or other hardware? It seems we forever "vote" with our brains on style issues, contrary to another post, "we climbers vote with our feet and the election is LONG OVER."
regarding the comment, "easy for a granite slab climber to be so sanctimonious, dealing with low angle naturally clean rock, but for the New England climber ..." Yes, the article is a bit pissy, isn't it? I was rather mad back then, just as the likes of Henry Barber and Mark Twight are now (See Rock and Ice, "Style Issue," # 138, 2004). It's worth asking why the style debate is so contentious and continuous across generations, a point I hope perhaps to address in a future article on styles. But I take your point: the less pissy the better. Oh, as for climbing only low angle granite slabs in the ground up style I ascribed to in those days, not so. At Pinnacles National Monument in California, I carried out the same style on a number of first and first free ascents on vertical and overhanging, mungy, lose (cleaning was not an option) volcanic rock which may rival some in New England. Add bats flying in your face, dive-bombing falcons, hand drilling without looking up to avoid the tip off, and you have quite an adventure. And yes, I put in many days on steep sandstone in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, wet English cliffs (machine nuts would you believe), junk piton Dolomites and in the Alps around Chamonix (a partner there threatened to pull me off if I didn't stop free climbing as it clouded up), all with the same climbing style. My mentor, Bob Kamps, would have it no other way. Mentors were very influential then. Imagine your partner beginning to pull you off for stepping or hanging on a bolt to rest - exactly what Frank Sacherer did to a young Tom Gerughty on the Crack of Despair in Yosemite. Bob was kinder to me, but the style lesson I got was clear: a few falls, no rope rests, reclimb to the high point, try again another day, ground up. And no dibs with tape or fixed ropes. Someone else always could get it while you're away - and did.
regarding the comment, "the statement that prior to 1970 all routes were climbed in his so called traditional style is completely ridiculous," it rivals my overstatement in the article. To be exact, the article says, "Before 1970, there were few, if any tricksters; nearly all the routes were done in traditional style." Perhaps it should have been, "The great bulk or majority of routes ..." I still contend there was a sea change in styles around that time, just as the same post itself contends by going on, "The truth of the matter is, a rappel inspection ... hook ... hangdog ... are techniques allowing guys like ... to take the climbing world by storm in the early 1980's." Storm indeed - exactly my point.
regarding, "Higgins must accept the responsibility that comes with encouraging boldness ... inevitable deaths." T&T does not equate danger with traditional style. The article is more focused on the how protection is placed and used rather than the volume of it. Nor did I create any death routes to my recollection (corrections, please). R, yes, but not X; bold when necessary to get it done, but not death defying, I hope. Some authors and commentators in The Rock and Ice issue cited above do seem to equate "traditional" with potential long or ground falls. Not my point at all. I tried to stay away from or turned back from many climbs I thought were too dangerous (getting down the better part of Super Pin in SD was the worst one). When caught in a desperate situation and getting through (e.g Twilight Zone and Fish Crack in Yosemite, with protection which wouldn't fit), I did not feel satisfied and ready for more, only grateful to be alive and determined to avoid a similar situations in the future. My preference in doing bolted first ascents was to make the protection as adequate as possible, keeping in mind bolts mark the rock, are hard to put in in the middle of difficult moves (often done anyhow) and time always was limited (paid dearly a few times on cold, unplanned bivouacs). As well, I have enjoyed my share of sport routes, but always found myself going back to the more mysterious, out of the way beauties, preferably involving a good share of natural protection.
the central point of T&T was not discussed on the posts. It is not about the merits for ourselves or others of sport or traditional styles (however defined), but a suggestion for climbers agreeing about how styles should play out in areas where they are in contention. To cite Pinnacles again, there climbers met, debated and agreed to ground up from now on (new guidebook will tell) as rap bolting became problematic for all users of the area. In the UK at the moment, regional forums are discussing, among other things, how trad and sport cliffs can exist in the same area via local agreements. It seems their cliffs are scarce, climbers numerous and without such agreements, bolt chopping and acrimony ensue. As T&T states, "climbers can get down to the business of mending old agreements and striking new ones." The idea seems very much applicable to some areas today.
last, to the post, "Higgins was such a humorless guy," I will suggest another piece for your enjoyment from an old Ascent - "In Due Time." Admittedly, some of the humor there is a bit dark and cerebral, probably from Irish blood.
Tom Higgins
LongAgo
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
The point is that in the early 1980's when you wrote the article the sport of rock climbing entered a new and exciting period. Climbing has gone through many such transformations, including the introduction of the extensive use of bolts to protect free climbing on faces, something that occoured in your heyday and allowed climbers to explore the great face climbing oif Toulumne and Yosemite for example. These transformations are not bad, they allow climbers to express themselves in new ways and keep the sport fresh and interesting. In the 60's you could have stuck to the cracks but the possibilities offered by this new approach were just to exciting to ignore. Well, ditto in the 80's. Your article demeaned the efforts of climbers, as if to say that because the were using different technicues, their efforts were somehow less worthy. Well I was there and I saw guys like Fawcett and Redhead doing routes of jawdropping difficulty and boldness, and there was nothing less worthy about their efforts. Older curmudgeons have always grumbled about such transformations in the sport, just as they probably did when your generation started to bolt the faces, but thankfully the new generations are happy to ingore such fingerwaging and continue to expand our sport in new and exciting ways.
|
|
G_Gnome
Trad climber
Ca
|
|
Tom, having lived thru much of the debated time and climbed a great deal with Bob also, I would have to say that ultimately people don't climb for the risks anymore and so style means less than it used to. Some few still do seek out the risks and they would have fit in during any era, but the masses just enjoy the movement over stone and don't care about much else. I have come to enjoy both styles of climbing but I can tell you from experience, sport climbing sure hurts less and that is part of its draw too. Thanks for posting and don't take any of these conversations personnally as I don't think they were meant that way.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
Jeremy wrote: "Older curmudgeons have always grumbled about such transformations in the sport, just as they probably did when your generation started to bolt the faces, but thankfully the new generations are happy to ingore such fingerwaging and continue to expand our sport in new and exciting ways."
If you sense behind these words you don't get the impression of someone who is "happy," nor are "ignoring," you're "fingerwaging" the "old curmudgeons."
Silly rabit . . .
JL
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
It's awesome to read some of these posts from guys like Higgins & Long.
A couple of thoughts:
The routes at a crag that have good pro tend to be the ones that get repeated. Look at the Tree Route at Dome Rock compared to all the runout face routes there. Or for a very extreme example look at Rock Warrior on Black Velvet Wall, compared to the Prince of Darkness.
If a crag has some well bolted face routes, the bold ones are rarely led. Many first ascentionists want their routes to be climbed. Or may think that a pure gound up minimal style becomes less meaningful if it is alongside a row of bolts.
I have personally seen plenty of examples of people who used to climb bold routes who no longer or at least rarely do so anymore. Possibly due to age & family, but also a change in the sport as a whole. More climbers out there, but the number of bold ones has not increased, so their percentage has dropped. Many people do not get into the sport for quite the same reasons as 15+ years ago.
To some extent, route developers will be influenced by the new masses. If most people don't care about boldness (except from their armchairs), that will change how routes are put up.
Like Dingus said, the expectations have changed - at a lot of crags it is out of the norm to boldly put up a route on lead. It would have to pointed out that the experience of climbing it may intentionally be quite different than a sport route.
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
All,
Thank you. Good, spirited pokes and salutes for my continued pondering and future writings.
Tom Higgins
Long Ago
|
|
Lars Ensign
Trad climber
Zephyr Cove, NV
|
|
Dear Tom Higgins,
First, I want to say thanks for your routes and thought-provoking writing. Me, I'm a worm, a nobody, an "everyman" climber - I mean no disrespect, but you asked for corrections/comments about potential x-rated routes that you estabilished? How about Hair Raiser Buttress? I'm not completely sure, but I was led to believe you and someone named Vern put up that route? I just climbed it after the Run Out Climbing Association decided to chop it back to it's orgional "proud" state. You would certianly die if you fell onto those nasty boulders at the base before you got to the second bolt, and possibly even if you fell above the 3rd bolt near the first pitch anchors. It's definitely X-rated. I hear even Vern said he wouldn't climb it in it's current condition. Now, I haven't been everywhere you have, but I've found precious little bolted 5.9 insecure slab climbing that is reasonably protected in the Eastern Sierra. In fact, I don't think I've found anyplace around here where a novice 5.9 leader can experience the breathless, cerebral art of slab climbing without potentially paying a huge price. Yes, there are tons of well bolted 5.9 face routes, but not insecure granite slabs. I (and I suspect I'm not alone on this) really enjoyed HRB in it's retro-bolted form. Tying that beautiful slab up with an X-rated route that few climbers are willing to climb seems like such a waste. You want a bold route that other climbers wile aspire to do in the same manly style you did? What you end up with is an x-rated 5.9 route that only gets done by "bold" climbers who are climbing way below their ability level (or by fools). What's the point of that, other than so they can convince themselves that they are "good" climbers? I don't think adding a few bolts takes away from our appreciation of the effort and boldness of the first ascentionists as long as guidebook authors continue giving credit where it is due. Why won't you give your permission to redoing the protection on the first pitch of HRB to make it simply an R-rated route when it seems you make a point of stating you never intentionally put up X-rated routes?
Lars Ensign
|
|
Gramicci
Social climber
Ventura
|
|
Well said, you make a compelling argument. The concept of protection making people climb at a higher standard is thought provoking. Perhaps in the reality of true traditionalism this 5.9 is their real standard? IMO Bolts shouldn’t be added to a climb you didn’t put up. It is really up to the first ascensionist to decide to make it user friendly or not. Personally I would craft it to be repeated but that would be my choice. Good point in that it probably is a waste for everyone that shouldn’t venture on to it. For those who choose to climb it, they can feel the same excitement that the first party did. These routes are really someone’s work of art
In my humble opinion
Mike Graham
|
|
Gramicci
Social climber
Ventura
|
|
I totally agree Lars is going about it the right way! If everyone approached reconfiguring a route this way dumb ethics statements like mine would be left unsaid. My comments aren’t really for this particular route in general and I see it’s a special case for some. But like anything where do you draw the line. I’m really glad Lars has thought about it this much. It’s a great example for many to follow.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
[url="http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004537.html"]1909
First cross-Channel flight. Louis Blériot flew in a 25-horsepower Blériot VI monoplane from Les Baraques near Calais, France, to Dover Castle, England, in a 26.61-mi (38-kilometer) 37-min. flight across the English Channel (July 25).[/url]
Louis, If you are out there, I was wondering if you would mind if I did your route in a 200 hp, variable pitch prop, retractable, gear plane, with a full navigation and communications stack, but without a parachute.
With all due respect, since this is your route, please advise.
|
|
Gramicci
Social climber
Ventura
|
|
You would need that kind of air power all the bolts in the sky have been chopped.
Two day’s ago I did a Loop in a vintage 70’s BO105 helicopter. Not many of the newer model helicopters can boast that!
|
|
LongAgo
Trad climber
|
|
Tom Higgins responds to recent request for adding bolts to Hair Raiser Buttress (Dec. 1, Tricksters and Traditionalists thread):
I much appreciate the request rather than retro bolting without request, as done not too long ago. Request post claims, "you would certainly die if you fell ... before you got to the second ... and possibly if you fell above the third bolt." Because I have posted my general intent in doing first ascents was not to create X routes (T&T thread), the question logically arises, why won't I agree to adding bolts to remedy the X here? I'm willing to rethink my position, but first would like to know:
Is there confusion about where the route goes? A post by Hardman Knott from 19 April, 2005 indicates he put a bolt in about 40 feet directly up from the beginning of the route where it goes right. Perhaps some climbers are going that way and thinking they are on the original route. Knott's post indicates his variation is hard with "ground fall" potential.
Is it not possible to protect the pitch with slings? I have posted about protecting this pitch with runners on another thread (Hair Raiser bolt removed, September 24). To reiterate the post, once out right onto the main face, I found it possible to snug chicken heads with thin slings (some call the knot a butterfly, but I'm not sure of the correct name). After an early 5.9 move where, I agree, a fall to the boulders would be bad but not killer, the moves seemed 5.8 and less and I don't recall feeling ground fall potential with the protection I used. Has something changed on the pitch to make this protection impossible? Or is it a matter of experience with slinging?
Is it possible the bolt removal which took place (I do not and did not advocate same - see Sept. 24 post) has eliminated any original bolts (I think there were three on the pitch)? Another post (Hair Raiser bolt removal thread, Sept. 24) indicates, "The fourth bolt was removed too, in a hard section ... I found removed bolts elsewhere." It seems possible retro bolting and removal is creating confusion about what were the original bolts. Note the clouding consequence of bolt warring, aside from nasty feelings all around.
Depending on the answers to these questions, I will reconsider my first response - to leave the route alone. I certainly would agree to replacement of original bolts if they are removed. Likewise, if the rock has changed so it is no longer possible to protect it with slings, I would agree to consider one bolt to protect the 5.8X section a poster (Sept. 24) describes as "the one that was really needed to make the route reasonably safe ... is bolt #2." But if the issue is inability or reluctance to sling or to run out 5.7 and 5.8 with the prospect of a long fall, I will stand by my original request to leave the route as it was done. Once I've received information and reconsidered, I will check with my partner Vern Clevenger and post again.
Also, given posts to date, I will alert the relevant guidebook authors to (1) the need to carry slings for protection and (2) the possible 5.8 X nature of the pitch. It seems modern guidebooks reserve R or X for climbing 5.8 or above. Generally, R or X is not given to 5.7 pitches off the ground, on broken faces or traverses out of dihedrals where a fall would have serious consequences. It is up to the guidebook author(s) if and how to add notice, but I will alert them based on concerns raised.
Posters should know they are not alone in their disappointment at turning back from nice walls like HB because the protection/mix is problematic. I certainly have passed on great looking climbs due to a protection/difficulty balance beyond me. See my previous posts about turning back from certain climbs, for example a long sought prize - Super Pin in SD. Closer to home, I was disappointed at turning back from the Bachar Yerian and You Asked For It (sidebar: attempting them with a solo self belay system was stupid). The point is, depending on our abilities and the protection, all of us face climbs too difficult or dangerous for the day. I never thought to ask Bachar to add bolts to insure my safety. Being humbled is part of the game, especially early on when pushing and hungry. Overall, I believe the best response is to alter our own behavior (get sane or better) not the climbs.
Some posts also express quandary at why I kept the number of bolts to a minimum on HB, or certain other first ascents. My motive was not to create death defying or "manly" routes (a poster asks, "You want a bold route that other climbers will aspire to do in the same manly style you did?" See T&T post, Dec. 1). Under clean climbing standards and ground up rules I grew up with (see previous T&T post about strong role of my mentor), bolts were the last resort. Minimizing their number was not to create mind games for others but leave the rock marked with as few bolts as possible. I realize my attitude may seem quaint in the era of sport routes, but we are products of our times and mentors, and that was the attitude instilled in me.
Should bolts be added to routes created under the minimalist bolting ethic so more climbers can enjoy them? After all, couldn't bolts be added, guidebooks still note the original style of the ascent and give credit accordingly, as a poster suggests? Of course there is pleasure being named in a guidebook or history. But to think getting into publications is such a central prize in climbing underestimates the complexity of the game. Preserving original protection is not to insure climbers get scared or first ascent parties get into history as bold. Preservation insures climbers preferring to do the climb in its original style get to do so. Some climbers prefer more risk and complication than many sport routes provide. They deserve their opportunities just as much as sportsters deserve theirs. But the picture is bigger than preferred risk profiles. Not altering routes insures they remain tributes to the time and mentality around their creation. An important joy of the climbing game comes not just from doing climbs, but viewing, pondering, absorbing (as per this very web site) the full well of experiences, the moving stage of heroes, fools and follies, high and low tales, grand and vain acts. In the drama, the features of routes and associated protection are the underlying choreography, the hand and foot sequences set in stone and passing on through time. Once protection is changed, the original choreography of moves, runs, hardware (and sling) frustrations, resulting pumps and rests, the curses and hoots - the entire emotional passage - is altered. And lost is an assessment of how nuts or noble were the makers, our second guessing of all they felt. In short, there is no tribute to the past, no way to tap the well. It is for all these reasons, barring unusual circumstances, routes should be left to stand as they were first done.
In sum, for now I will ask for climbers to leave HB as it stands. I am open to receiving more information on the questions I've raised, consider further and post. I also will consult with my partner for the climb. I hope all this seems reasonable. Ultimately, today's climbers will have to decide what to preserve and not, as the wonder and fragility of the game is each new generation gets to determine how to play it.
Thank you,
Tom Higgins
LongAgo
|
|
| Messages 1 - 33 of total 33 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!