Super Chicken on Medlicott : add bolts to third pitch?

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1 - 415 of total 415 in this topic

Rick A

climber

Boulder, Colorado

Topic Author's Original Post - Sep 24, 2011 - 02:12pm PT

I went back last month with George B. to climb Super Chicken, on the left side of Medlicott. "Wild" Jim Wilson and I had done the first ascent back in 1974. The ST guide lists it as a four star crack climb, but with a 5.7 X third pitch that is so seldom done that it is standard procedure to bring two ropes and rap off after the second pitch.

Memory is a funny thing. I have vivid memories of leading that third pitch, a knob-studded arete , which climbs on lower angled rock that borders the vertical and overhanging face where Scorpion and Wailing Wall go. But I had zero memory of the hand crack second pitch that Jim had led on the first ascent.

I think this illustrates the rewards of risk in climbing, a topic that has been discussed much in recent threads, especially the Superpin bolt kerfuffle. Thirty seven years later, I had forgotten entirely the fantastic 5.9 hand crack that I didn't lead, but still remembered vividly the run out 5.7 face that I did lead. I recall marveling at the path of golden knobs at the hanging belay that Jim had just installed and champing at the bit to get on it. I started up and it was easy climbing, so I just kept going.It was our practice in those days to not put in a bolt until you really needed it, to try to keep the route in as natural a state as possible. Well, the climbing never got so hard that I felt I needed a bolt and I just kept climbing until the rope ran out, and put in a two bolt belay. I recall a short step about halfway up where there was a paucity of knobs, but it only made me pause a moment to be sure of the holds and I blew past this without a problem. The name Super Chicken was inspired by this third pitch, due to that highway of chicken headed knobs.

Back to last month. George led the approach pitch and I got to lead the 5.9 crack this time. What a pitch it is! Hand jamming like many climbs in the valley below, but not like a valley hand crack at all because of the knobs that appear as you progress, both on the face and on the edges of the strangely fluted crack itself. The crack eventually peters out but the wall kicks back and big knobs appear for a 5.9 move to a two bolt belay, just below the arete.

I hadn't been climbing a lot and I didn't intend to do the third pitch this time, but I took a good look at it and longed to go up it. But there is a season for higher risk routes in a climbing career and that season is passed for me. Back safely home, I entertain the idea that with another week of playing the knobs in TM, I could easily manage it.

Why not add a bolt or two to make that third pitch more reasonable, so most people wouldn't have to rap off, right at the start of the most beautiful and unique section of the route? SC is not a test piece like the Bachar Yarian or Southern Belle. No top climber is going to seek it out to demonstrate his or her mastery. Snake Dike and West Country have had bolts added with the consent of the first ascent party (see Eric Beck's and Doug Robinson's comments in the recent "route ownership" thread) and ensured fun memories for many a 5.7 leader.

But, by consenting to adding bolts, I would be working against what makes the TM experience rewarding and rare. TM has an ethic of preserving the risk in climbing and I woudn't want to contribute to erosion of it. It is a testament to that ethic that no one has added a bolt to this pitch for 37 years.

But on the other hand, adding a bolt or two would allow cautious (timid?) climbers, including my present self, the opportunity to access some great climbing without undue risk.

Opinions? How about you Wild Jim?

nature

climber

back in Tuscon Aridzona....

Sep 24, 2011 - 02:19pm PT

I'd vote for adding them.

I'm sure you'll get some detractors and their opinions are certainly valuable.

You guys put it up and as you won't be turning it into a sport route....

2 bolts in 150'(?) is still pretty sporty.

the kid

Trad climber

fayetteville, wv

Sep 24, 2011 - 03:05pm PT

keep the route as is. time and age have now have you second guessing.
the whole point of climbing, especially in the meadows is to step up your game if you want to climb there.
i am so against bolts getting added these days for connivence and the masses. if you can;t do 5.7 run out then they should not climb there.

ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber

San Francisco, Ca

Sep 24, 2011 - 03:12pm PT

Seems to me maybe one or two bolts in 150 feet would not chance the TM feel that much and may result in some deserved attention to the route. But I'm in my 40s and have kids so don't listen to me!

karodrinker

Trad climber

San Jose, CA

Sep 24, 2011 - 03:42pm PT

would a fall near the top of that pitch be assured death? dismemberment?

TwistedCrank

climber

Ideeho-dee-do-dah-day boom-chicka-boom-chicka-boom

Sep 24, 2011 - 03:54pm PT

It's up to you - you put it up (if you buy into that ethic).

If it were up to me - and it's not - I'd add enough bolts to make the X rating into an R rated climb. Keep the pucker, lose the death TM.

Greg Barnes

climber

Sep 24, 2011 - 04:21pm PT

I just top-roped that pitch (when replacing anchor bolts - we'd replaced the second pitch pro bolt and one anchor bolt earlier), and I remember 100 feet of gorgeous knobs to some slightly flakey slab - really scary looking since I couldn't even find a poor knob to tie off. One or two bolts would still leave an R/X rating because if you fall you'll probably go over the arete to the right.

You can't go to either side - to the right is a drop-off (i.e. much steeper terrain) and to the left is a massively runout section of Pussy Paws (100+ feet of 5.9, then one bolt and a bit of 5.10). The exact path of that pitch of Pussy Paws is pretty indistinct since there are no bolts at all for so long (and it's kind of flakey slab with some knobs). If you were to climb the steep right edge of the arete (which might well be possible at 5.9/10) you would need a number of bolts, but it would be really contrived since you could just step around left to easier terrain.

Also you can get some great well-protected knobby climbing lower down on that arete right now with a little bit of effort. We put up a 2-pitch route just left of Super Chicken a few years ago, Loco Yokel. The arete pitch left of the hand crack pitch on Super Chicken is an excellent 5.8-ish knob-fest with a move or two of easy 10 at the bottom, well-protected when 5.9-10 and a bit spaced when 5.7, and it's possible for experienced folks to rappel at an angle from pitch 2 of Super Chicken to the hanging belay and climb just that pitch. The first pitch off the ground is a hard 10+, bolts and gear (especially thin). Just beware that it's a real hanging belay, only a 2"-wide ledge for your feet on a steep wall. I had to climb the upper 3/4 of the arete pitch rope-solo because both of my partners were too smart to want to hang out at that belay while I drilled!

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 24, 2011 - 04:34pm PT

Follow your gut feeling Rick. You've got a good mind, I trust it.

I wonder how many times that pitch has been done sans bolts?

I might have done it BITD, but even though I'm still a reasonably solid climber now, I'd probably rap. I've got four kids and my boldness bone has shrunk over the years.

Steve Grossman

Trad climber

Seattle, WA

Sep 24, 2011 - 04:44pm PT

Rick- Such a pleasure to meet you at last at Jeff's birthday party!

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it!

With a name like Super Chicken how could you not honor the Chicken and add a few bolts? There is a place for both approaches but given the grade and quality of the climbing of the entire route as you describe it, if you are hesitant to take on the runouts at 5.7 then change the situation as the FA er.

Super Chicken isn't a statement climb or testpiece as you also point out.

Nobody worth paying attention to is really going to give you a bad time about this, I suspect.

msiddens

Trad climber

Mountain View

Sep 24, 2011 - 04:45pm PT

You put it up and its your style for it. Hats of to you...if you are asking though I'd personally appreciate the added bolts:-)

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 24, 2011 - 05:00pm PT

you are asking though I'd personally appreciate the added bolts:-)

So would most of us......

Except on Superpin, DON'T ADD ONE THERE!!!

Roger Breedlove

climber

Cleveland Heights, Ohio

Sep 24, 2011 - 05:02pm PT

Hi Rick,

In hindsight, we all should have been more aware of the issues we would create in running out easy pitches. At the time, I didn't think about placing bolts on moderate pitches, but I am happy that bolts have been added to moderate pitches on routes I did in the same timeframe as "Super Chicken." There seems to be a clear boundary line allowing additional bolts on moderate pitches without overstepping by adding bolts that change the character of a climb.

Greg Barnes

climber

Sep 24, 2011 - 05:02pm PT

Why not add a bolt or two to make that third pitch more reasonable, so most people wouldn't have to rap off, right at the start of the most beautiful and unique section of the route? SC is not a test piece....

I have heard the exact same reasoning from other well-known Tuolumne FA-ists. One of them asked me to add a pro bolt to an easier route of his (I had to decline as the ASCA guy), but then was livid that someone had added a bolt to one of his testpieces. He said "some routes were testpieces, but some we just did for fun and we were too cheap to bolt well."

Many say that adding a bolt is a slippery slope. But when the FA does it that is obviously very limiting on the activity. The only case I can remember recently is Bob Kamps adding a bolt to take Ewe Must Be Kidding from X to (very) R. And it has been almost 10 years since Alan Nelson (RIP) publicly offered not only for people to retrobolt his old solos, but that he would reimburse them for bolts. No one took him up on it despite some very appealing terrain (such as three 5.6-5.9 free solos on the right edge of Fairview Dome that would be multipitch if roped). So even when the FA asks other people to retrobolt his routes and even offers to pay for the bolts, still no takers. If it is a slippery slope, it hasn't gotten very slippery at this point.

It's your call, but with 2-3 a lot of people would climb it, and with 4-6 it would be really popular. The top anchor is bomber, Karin and I replaced those bolts 7/29/03. I think they are single-ring Fixe rap hangers, but I can't remember - might just be plain hangers because we didn't expect anyone to get to that point and rap instead of continuing.

It's also worth noting that the top of the 3rd pitch is still only halfway up the wall, there is a lot of climbing terrain up there that is pretty fun and very rarely traveled.

ß Î Ø T Ç H

Boulder climber

bouldering

Sep 24, 2011 - 05:19pm PT

Put some bolts in, so I can safely lead it with a baby on my back.

climber

Sep 24, 2011 - 08:03pm PT

Put some bolts in, so I can safely lead it with a baby on my back.

I see a trend here...

crunch

Social climber

Sep 24, 2011 - 09:27pm PT

Nice idea to post this as a question, to see what feedback you get.

I would suggest that the prevailing ethic is that you, as the first ascent party, can add or remove bolts as you wish.

But of course this ethic is tempered by the contradictory consideration that at some point the wider climbing community becomes responsible for anchor decisions.

If it were a popular pitch, then the community would have more claim to ownership, you would have less; it gets sort of grandfathered in, accepted "as is."

In this case, the pitch is seldom, if ever climbed. So perhaps the climbing community has less claim on it, you maybe have more. So I'd say go ahead, add a couple bolts.

Climbing is changing; very few modern climbers enjoying the rest of the route will choose to run out an entire pitch. It's the sort of thing that many of us would happily do for a first ascent, but not for some random 5.7 pitch. One snapped knob and.....

But if anyone shows up on this thread who has actually led this pitch and feels strongly that it should be left as is, maybe that would be a reason to leave it alone.

Guck

Trad climber

Santa Barbara, CA

Sep 24, 2011 - 11:08pm PT

Rick, Putting a bolt or two would make the climb a different climb. How would climbers respond if a couple of bolts were added to the Nutcracker to make it "safer"? The bottom line is that one should not go on the climb if not ready to duplicate the first ascent. Leave the climb as is!!

Mike Bolte

Trad climber

Planet Earth

Sep 24, 2011 - 11:39pm PT

don't do it!

Particularly as you can rap off from the end of the crack, leave it for folks to do as you did way back when or to choose not to.

phylp

Trad climber

Millbrae, CA

Sep 25, 2011 - 12:06am PT

Well, whatever you decide, thanks a whole bunch for the vision of the nice, short first pitch and the amazing second pitch. It's just beautiful climbing.

I don't really have an opinion about the third pitch - I can see both sides of the argument for and against adding a few bolts. When I went up there I personally felt that it was too dangerous for me to risk leading the third pitch. It's a funny thing - for many of us there is a rating where we "never" fall, and yet we wouldn't solo that same rating. To me the x rating = soloing.

WBraun

climber

Sep 25, 2011 - 12:26am PT

I remember on-sight free soloing Super Chicken.

The crux was not getting blown off the face.

It was so windy up there I had to wait for breaks in the gusts .....

tom Carter

Social climber

Sep 25, 2011 - 12:57am PT

Interesting.

Did the rt with Vern soon after the fa.

Felt like great adventure back then - wandering up all the rock seemed open and free because of the lack of bolts.

Tc

the kid

Trad climber

fayetteville, wv

Sep 25, 2011 - 08:26am PT

it is an interesting argument..
one that gets clouded by time...
once this slippery slope is opened it creates more venues for more bolts for more masses.
i remember the ethic during that ear as one of minimalist and also since most of us were poor, we used bolts according to our ability to buy more.
then there was the stance issue- not all routes were run out on purpose as most modern bolt clippers would argue, they were placed where a stance would allow.

as one who respects you very much Rick, i would say do what your gut says is right. but also be aware that this trend is growing and the demands of the masses will soon outweigh tradition and history. i will say there are lots of places in california where people can clip to their hearts content and never have to step up to adventure to climb. i say we leave our last few wild places wild and respect the tradition that makes the meadows so special..

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 25, 2011 - 09:31am PT

if you are gonna fall on 5.7 you dont need to be in the route.

Riley, you're assuming that a knob won't break on some solid 5.10 climber who's out there 70 feet.

I've broken knobs in Tuolumne and I haven't done as much there as some of these guys.

WBraun

climber

Sep 25, 2011 - 12:45pm PT

If a knob breaks then your number is up.

If you get hit by the bus your number came up ......

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 25, 2011 - 01:07pm PT

right again Werner.

No pro on anything.

tom Carter

Social climber

Sep 25, 2011 - 01:46pm PT

Kurt

I agree.

Let's leave some places alone as much as possible.

WBraun

climber

Sep 25, 2011 - 01:55pm PT

Since I was scared when I free soloed it back then I should add bolts so I can do it safely NOW.

It will make the world safe from the run out terrorists.

They are the axis of evil.

We should declare war on those evil bastards .....

Jingy

climber

Somewhere out there

Sep 25, 2011 - 02:20pm PT

I say yes, if the FA wants to add a bolt, then alert the guidebook writers of the inclusion then there should be no problem.

This whole "keeping it real" stuff is long gone.
If we wanted to keep it real then there would not be a bolt anywhere and every person who climbed a route would get the same (or close to the same) experience as the FA.

Once a bolt is placed it certainly makes it a little easier to get the next group to come up after.

jw35

climber

Sep 25, 2011 - 04:15pm PT

I normally don't chime in but on this one I will more to clarify the first ascent. When Ricky led the 3rd pitch I kept waiting for a bolt or gear or something to clean. Which never came. Then when I reached Ricky I looked to check the anchors. There were none. He was just sitting there sans anchors. When I mentioned this He calmly replied " You weren't going to fall". Hmmmmmm..........There were no bolts, no nuts, no nada. I won't go into what I was thinking right then, but it wasn't good. So I promptly left to find some place to hopefully place some gear. The sooner the better. As to retrobolting.......Why not. In character with the rest of the route 5.7 X seems silly but then again so does 5.7 R. Add 4 or so. There are climbs making statements then and now, this is not one of them. Nor should it be. There are plenty of retro bolted climbs in the meadows and I clip them all.

Jim

caughtinside

Social climber

Davis, CA

Sep 25, 2011 - 04:47pm PT

I did super chicken a few years ago. Didn't even consider doing that third pitch, even though it looked easy and way fun. 150' with zero gear? That is a solo. Even if the pitch had 2 bolts it's 50 feet between bolts. It may ruin the pitch for the 5.11 hardmen who brave this 5.7 testpiece, but if you fall or a knob breaks you get to live.

I don't know... I am generally against retrobolting stuff, but zero gear is a solo. If guys want to solo the route they still get to die if they fall.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Sep 25, 2011 - 05:15pm PT

Boy, that's a sticky wicket. I remember adding bolts to Stoner's Highway on Middle because there initially were some dangerous sections and we thought nobody would climb the thing otherwise. If you'll recall, Ricky, we also (or I did) added a bolt on the fist pitch of Ten Carrot at Suicide (last bolt before the 1st belay) believing that few climbers wanted to risk a 100 foot fall on 5.8/9. Both of these routes have now been done thousands of times I should think.

One route we DIDN'T stitch up was Black Primo (Kevin ran the rope pretty far on the 2nd pitch, and my knees were knocking repeating this lead with Billy Westbay several years later), which is the best of the three and probably has been done less than a dozen times. I wouldn't swap my experience on Black Primo with Kevin and George on the FA, but I trust it would be an all-time classic with a few more bolts.

So I have no idea what to do . . .

JL

Nick

climber

portland, Oregon

Sep 25, 2011 - 05:45pm PT

My voice does not carry the weight of some, yet I feel like chiming in. I personally think that adding the bolts to the third pitch will continue the character of the climb. Ricky, remember the route we did that day on West Farthling wall this last August where it was obvious that two different people had put it up. Sometimes the bolts were very closely spaced and at others times had a more Meadows feel to it. I think a route can be like that too. If the first two pitches were spicy, I would say leave it, but it makes sense to me to bring the third pitch into character with the rest of the climb. Perhaps paint the hangers yellow.
On the few routes I have put up with an R/X rating, I often regret not putting in more bolts so that others have a more enjoyable experience. In some ways having the drill on your hip adds courage to your lead as you have the option of drilling if a stance presents it self.

Nick

guido

Trad climber

Santa Cruz/New Zealand/South Pacific

Sep 25, 2011 - 10:37pm PT

Interesting and complex question.

My gut feeling says that if you did the first ascent and feel any inclination now to add a bolt, go ahead because if anyone has the moral obligation to do so it is you. There is no dearth of "test pieces" in the Meadows. The fact the majority of parties stop at the second pitch should be a consideration.

Certainly Snake Dike is a classic example. The original ascent team of Beck, Bridwell and Fredericks felt more bolts should be added and today it is one of the all time Classic routes. I was on the second ascent before Roper added "some" bolts and there was no doubt more bolts were required. Largo has some great analogies both ways.

First ascents are works of art. Some superb, others worthless, a given in the eyes of the creator and an option for later ascents.

If you were to put up Super Chicken today at your present age and ability what would you do? I think with your stellar resume and reputation for integrity you can pretty much justify doing what you please.

Consider the author that writes a superb novel but no one can get past the second chapter from lack of a simple paragraph or two.

Then again I always felt that if you did the first ascent you also have the option to rename the climb. Now that ought to stir up some sh#t?

Rest assured that no matter what you do, you won't win with the pundits on ST but a noble effort indeed to confront the beasts.

jsb

Trad climber

Bay area

Sep 25, 2011 - 11:37pm PT

Here's a vote for some respectfully placed bolts. They may keep a future climber alive. That sounds pretty ethical to me. (Plus, that means I can then go climb it!)

rick d

climber

ol pueblo, az

Sep 25, 2011 - 11:56pm PT

I'm gonna have to say I am on the other side of the fence than most if not all of you. Rebolting it now is a pile of crap as it will only open it up to climbers with less talent. Shoes are infinitely better than when you cruised it Rick and that alone makes it easy enough. The "ownership" of the FA party has subsided as the route now stands years later with other repeats (and werner's solo). Let some other folks emulate the FA.

WBraun

climber

Sep 26, 2011 - 12:37am PT

The route is already no longer pure.

Routes always remain pure.

It's us that become/bcame impure ......

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Sep 26, 2011 - 12:54am PT

There is so much rock out there and there are numerous new safe climbs (at the end of Dozier, Blown Away, Shagadelic etc.) The reason I started trad climbing was the challenge and Rick's climbs in TM, Taquitz, Suicide were hallowed ground. I love to climb the older routes and still like to climb over old bolts. I have been replacing old bolts to make climbs safer but I'm with the Kid on this one 'cause when do you stop? Why not add a bolt to Grey Ghost and on and on... Of coarse the FA has the call but I would hope the spirit stays. I've worked hard to be able to get to a place where I can climb these things. I plan on climbing Greasy but Groovy this fall (FA: Rick Accommazo, John Long, Richard Harrison). Adding a bolt to that climb would definitely ruin it for me.

Mungeclimber

Trad climber

sorry, just posting out loud.

Sep 26, 2011 - 02:03am PT

contradictory consideration that at some point the wider climbing community becomes responsible for anchor decisions

This sounds like a defeatist argument accepting an inevitable conclusion. This is not the case. Community is not always required for an ascent, nor is the question of retrobolting required. However, I've always believed in the metaphor of authorship of one's climb.

So Rick, I'm not sure we've met in person, but I think clearly it's your call to make and that you are only asking folks for the merits of retro'ing vs. leaving it.

With that said, it's a very tough call to make. I would suggest that if you already had a strong desire to change it, you wouldn't be asking the question. But since you ask, you have doubt.

If that doubt wanes, and you want to climb that pitch in your current condition, go for it! But if going up and rapping in and drilling by hand and figuring out good placemens (actually perfect placements since retrobolting with shitty clips is lame as fuk), and might I suggest based on Jim's thought that you add an anchor, doesn't appeal to you, then sit on it awhile.

In the meantime, maybe the story might get some other's to check it out.

Greg Barnes

climber

Sep 26, 2011 - 02:13am PT

If what Jim Wilson wrote is accurate about there being no belay bolts at the end of the pitch in question on the FA, then bolts have already been added to make the route safer.

There were 2 old rusty 1/4" bolts there when we replaced them in 2003. From that belay (for the next pitch) you climb quite a ways out right and up to join some not-very-splitter cracks, then continue back left and up.

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Sep 26, 2011 - 02:43am PT

You're the Man Rick, and your judgement is trusted, and you're the one who would perhaps have questions in your heart if some 5.9 leader took a 200 foot fall and got whacked up there, so whatever you think.

Personally, I don't see how 5.7 x faces match up with 5.9 classic cracks. What's the point? To make it spicy for the very rare 5.10+ climber who has business soloing that onsight?

Cause two bolts on a full pitch is still VERY spicy. More sweat and fear might be inspired on that pitch if it had two bolts cause a few people would choose to do it. Even 4 bolts a pitch is spicy for that grade of climb and then it would be popular.

Guess I'm not much of a traditionalist. I say the punishment should fit the crime and the protection should match the climb. 5.7 faces are not for climbers good enough to onsight solo them.

Bachar told me about his solo FA of Solitary confinement. Some key knob was sketchy and looked to break when he was up there and he almost bought it right then. Some would call that a noble adventure but I dunno. Wonder how many ascents that 5.9, allegedly 5 star route has had? Seems like a waste to me if even the best in the world at runouts at the time needed luck to survive.

Peace

Karl

tinker b

climber

the commonwealth

Sep 26, 2011 - 09:05am PT

i think two bolts would keep with the charecter of the meadows.

Matt M

Trad climber

Alamo City

Sep 26, 2011 - 10:48am PT

Asking the Supertopo clan for an opinion on a a retro-bolt (especially in TM) is like asking a vegan for tips on a good steak house, you answers will VASTLY be skewed in a particular direction but you may get some more "worldy" people who can see beyond their own ideals.

Anyway, I'd take the opinions here with a certain grain of salt...

I think the well reasoned answer is that a retro of some sort is fine. The pitch is not a well established classes "runout" or even a moderately known one. It sounds as if nearly everyone bails on top of p2.

As you point out, your world view changes throughout life and what once made bold and stylistic sense (or illustrated a lack there of) now appears foolhardy or perhaps a lesser choice than it once was.

I agree 100% that the act of allowing retro-bolts is a VERY slippery slope. If someone were to suggest a retro of Nutcracker I'd be right with everyone protesting it vehemently. Using Nutcracker though(or the B-Y, or The Dike Route etc) is a bit of a misleading argument as it's sure to invoke the strongest of anti-retro bolting sentiments rather than evoking a well reasoned discussion on the matter.

I recognize that for some, retro-ing of ANY kind is tantamount to bolting cracks and a line that should never be crossed. I think this is a valid line for a reasonable number of routes. However, sticking to that line for EVERY ROUTE is myopic in the grand scheme of things. Times change, protection changes as do climbers (My boldness has ebbed with age, family responsibilities etc etc).

A climbing culture that cannot thoughtfully adapt to changing times while still recognizing its colorful and storied history is doomed to stagnate at some point. If climbers did not adapt to changing protection and ethics we'd still be pounding pins and NOT FALLING on hemp ropes.

An effort needs to be made in the climbing community to establish a well reasoned "ethic" for retro bolting. Without such a reasoned ethic in place you are left with continuous arguments by the differing factions and an endless, distasteful battle.

I've recently heard of an interesting style down here in TX where, in the past, they have "paired" routes with 2 neighboring lines having vastly different pro. They were once all R/X routes but certain ones were identified and retro'd to give you a bold and a "Safe" climb in the same vicinity. I believe the more "famous" of the routes was left as the bold one and the other received the retro. An interesting idea. That isn't to say you still don't have battles as a recent one ensued on an older 5.7R/X route. I think part of that issues is there was very little knowledge of the "pairing" concept and the history of retro's there by newer climbers to the area. That's KEY. Open and well documented information on the history of retro's etc.

I say bolt that last pitch and make sure you put a well reasoned "history" out there as a reference point to others. The first post is an excellent start.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 26, 2011 - 11:06am PT

If someone were to suggest a retro of Nutcracker I'd be right with everyone protesting it vehemently.

I'd say Nutcracker is a poor example because there are NUT placements all the way up the thing.

On Super Chicken there is nothing out there for the leader who might be anywhere near his limit.

I agree with those who say there are plenty of test pieces in TM.

If the FA team said no, it needs to be a place where the 5.8 leader can have the sh#t scared out of him, fine, I'd support that.
(But 5.7 5.8 leaders have the sh#t scared out of them practically every time they climb.)

But that's not the case here. The FA guys who are intelligent, experienced well mannered guys are thinking that it would be nice to have their beautiful climb experienced by a few more folks, all the way to the top.
3-4 bolts is not going to ruin the climb or make a baby event out of it. There will still be plenty of spice there for the average human.

Should a 23 year old mother of two who is really wishing to stretch herself a little die for this tradition?

Should it be left blank so that guys as experienced and hard as Werner and Cragman have a place that they can be pure and excited?

Or should it be actually attainable for a 5.8 leader or the aging 5.10 climber with a family to come home to? (That's me) I've done a thousand routes in Yosemite and Tuolumne, I have no one to apologize to.

I have all the respect in the world for Werner, but I get tired of his one sentence wisdom, "if a knob breaks your number is up." Bullsh#t, if there's a bolt 20 feet under you, you might get to hug your kids that night.

Werner and the others don't want to die doing this stuff either. There's plenty of unbolted rock up there. Go free solo that if you want to get your purity on.

We're talking about tradition yes, and spice too, but don't forget there's life and death involved.

Mark Hudon

Trad climber

Hood River, OR

Sep 26, 2011 - 11:14am PT

Don't drill it, leave it as a route or pitch for someone to aspire to. Hell, I'd love to do Bachar-Yerian but I'd be pissed as hell if it was bolted down to my level (and I wouldn't go do it)!

Don't forget, All route don't have to be for All people.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 26, 2011 - 11:19am PT

Another 5.12 climber says no bolts.

Mark, we already know not all routes are for everyone.

BY has bolts on it. Every pitch.

guido

Trad climber

Santa Cruz/New Zealand/South Pacific

Sep 26, 2011 - 11:27am PT

Werner doesn't count as he is a genetic aberration.

rectorsquid

climber

Lake Tahoe

Sep 26, 2011 - 11:35am PT

You guys did whatever the heck you wanted on the FA. You can do whatever the heck you want to do now. The current ethic, or whatever it is called, is that you own the route. It's yours.

Unless of course you were insane or drunk or otherwise mentally incapacitated at the time of the climb. Nobody's going to follow the climbing ethics of a lunatic. Many people follow the climbing ethics of cowards but that doesn't seem to be the case then or now for this route.

Dave

WBraun

climber

Sep 26, 2011 - 11:42am PT

If you bolt it.

It will become safe.

Then you will get hit by a bus down the road to compensate if your number is up ....

This post is for (survival) = (irony) ..... LOL

Guck

Trad climber

Santa Barbara, CA

Sep 26, 2011 - 11:43am PT

Werner is right. Adding just one bolt changes the nature of the climb and the consequences for better climbers can be disastrous. For example, the bolt added to the first pitch of West Crack has made the 5.9 move OK for the masses, and many parties now have to give up the climb because it is so crowded. The same thing can be said of the top pitches of South crack, where bolts have appeared, with the same consequences. Superchicken is not in the same class as South or West cracks, but we can see where the road leads. I can envision a future world where climbers will have to have reservations for a climb!

Greg Barnes

climber

Sep 26, 2011 - 11:52am PT

West Crack always had that bolt, there is a great story of Sacherer breaking a knob on the FA attempt, landing on the ledge (and almost falling off it), hobbling back to the car, then getting a bolt kit from the Valley and coming back and placing the bolt.

There are zero pro bolts on South Crack. There was a single 1/4" that was off-route on the first slab pitch which I removed years ago. It is unlikely that the only bolted anchor up there is added, since it is 150 feet above the last pro and a long ways from any other pro.

On Super Chicken, the bolted belay at the top of the 3rd pitch was there in the 1983 Tuolumne guide, so if it was not original then it was added between '74 and the early '80s. Perhaps by the second ascent team?

Don Lauria

Trad climber

Bishop, CA

Sep 26, 2011 - 12:15pm PT

One fine summer day back in the 70s, TM Herbert and I had just finished doing The Yawn. As we passed the beginning of what has since been named Super Chicken, Herbert said he thought there was a good route to be done there and we agreed to come back in a week and do it.

Much to our dismay, on returning the following week, we discovered that the route had just been done (the hand-written guide in the guide's room indicated it had been done just two days before).

We went out and did what we assumed was the 2nd ascent. Though my memory fails me, I assume TM led the first pitch and we swung leads. I don't recall Herbert whimpering about lack of protection and believe me he would have whimpered.

So you see, Thomas, we did the 2nd ascent!

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Sep 26, 2011 - 12:30pm PT

Jim Wilson:

In character with the rest of the route

There are lots of pros and cons but I think that is a big factor in crafting a quality route.

james Colborn

Trad climber

Truckee, Ca

Sep 26, 2011 - 12:50pm PT

" "making routes more popular" in these times of crowds at the crags is also something to think about. BOLTED sport routes have made a lot af areas EXTREMELY popular,, in fact a little too popular~ Donner now has out houses for petes sake! And with those come "policies" "fees" and the rest of the pandoras box."

What bolted sport route at Snowshed, or the summit for that matter has made it "too" popular? Its a roadside crag, proximity is its demise.

I use the sani hut on donner and am thankful Granite Chief {or whomever} has donated it. Way better than the alternative. I also believe it shows a sense of stewardship amongst the climbing communitty. Not sure where the implication of policies and fees come in.

Super Chicken is a great route, I down climbed that pitch a coupe times before getting to the top, it's heads up.

I begin to wonder why even put routes up if you don't want them repeated or to become popular. The remnants just become vertical trash.

James

stevep

Boulder climber

Salt Lake, UT

Sep 26, 2011 - 01:04pm PT

Very interesting discussion, and good to see so many experienced folks chiming in.

Seems to me that if the two FAs are having thoughts about adding bolts, then they should probably go in.

This seems to be a case where the 3rd pitch is significantly different then the first two. The first two, being cracks, have good pro. So using B-Y or other climbs where the the entire route is scary, is not a good comparison.

Josh Nash

Social climber

riverbank ca

Sep 26, 2011 - 01:06pm PT

I have noobish questions. If the FA party adds three or four bolts to an existing climb who says you have to use those bolts? Couldn't you use say a different colored hangar on the new bolts? If you did a climbing party could then chose hey I'm going to push death today or hey I have kids at home and want an enjoyable climb.

(But 5.7 5.8 leaders have the sh#t scared out of them practically every time they climb.)

yep I sure do.

philo

Trad climber

Somewhere halfway over the rainbow

Sep 26, 2011 - 01:12pm PT

Good point Survival. I agree.

ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber

San Francisco, Ca

Sep 26, 2011 - 01:14pm PT

Truth is that the mods in TM are way over impacted- seems like routes with one x pitch that otherwise have decent pro could be spruced up to relieve some pressure.

Better to do it now in a thoughtful manner b/c in the not too distant future the old guard will be long gone and the hordes of new climbers will take matters into their own hands. The just leave everything as it was in 1977 approach is likely to be about as effective as teaching abstinence to high school kids.

jsb

Trad climber

Bay area

Sep 26, 2011 - 01:17pm PT

Wow, the history and experience being drawn upon in this thread is really something to behold. An occasional weekend climber like myself shouldn't be allowed to post here in the same way that I shouldn't be allowed to go scrambling up a 150 ft 5.7 with no pro. :) Humor aside, a big thanks to all of the legendary FA's here for, quite literally, showing the rest of us the way.

"That sounds pretty ethical to me."

So, RA FA lead and his subsequent decision of where to place or not placen bolts on the third pitch of Super Chicken was unethical? And likewise with all such runout routes. I agree that the 1st acensionist should have the final say, but a logical discussion should precede the final decision.

thaDood, I wish I did have a logical argument for you, but I think logic sort of goes out the window as soon as you start talking about sports like climbing, BASE jumping or slacklining. Everybody has a different view of what they are getting out of it, how much they are altering the natural world, and when to say "no" when the risk/reward ratio gets a little bit too high.

Personally, I think routes like the Bachar-Yerian and Southern Belle add to the legend and mystique of Yosemite in a way that would be tragic to lose. For some, these routes are an inspiration and a lifelong goal. For others like myself, they are like ghost stories to whisper about around campfires. These routes leave a rich impression on all climbers, whether or not those climbers ever actually get on the route.

I'd venture that Super Chicken, although I'm sure it's a bold and beautiful climb, doesn't quite make it into the above category. And, in this case, I think the route should be set up in a way to provide the most benefit/happiness in the long run. Let's take the long view here and imagine how Yosemite might look in the next 1000, or even 10,000 years... long after all the first ascents and the first ascensionists are gone.

Let's say that without bolts, maybe 10 people will climb the third pitch every year. With bolts, maybe 100? Are the 10 people climbing it without bolts really enjoying it 10x more than those who would climb it with bolts? And do we really want to encourage those who would be willing to climb it without bolts to take the risk? There's so much more to life than climbing. And it's very possible that someday someone will overestimate their ability on this route, have a knob break off, get caught in a freak thunderstorm, or just happen to slip at the wrong time and they will die. I think that's a pretty high price to pay.

philo

Trad climber

Somewhere halfway over the rainbow

Sep 26, 2011 - 01:27pm PT

Better to do it now in a thoughtful manner b/c in the not too distant future the old guard will be long gone and the hordes of new climbers will take matters into their own hands. The just leave everything as it was in 1977 approach is likely to be about as effective as teaching abstinence to high school ki

Touche' and Ditto.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 26, 2011 - 01:30pm PT

Ok, Werner and a couple of others have posted here that they've done the thing.

Who here is going to go do the rig with no gear? It sounds like a great route, and I like topping out on formations.

Once upon a time I led 5.11+ onsight, almost regularly. I'm not going out on a 150 foot 5.7 knob pitch with no pro 400+ ft off the ground.

Call me a weenie, I don't care.

HighTraverse

Trad climber

Bay Area

Sep 26, 2011 - 01:31pm PT

Most people commenting don't mention if they've done the route, so I assume they haven't. For the record, I haven't so now I'll add my spew.
My first thought was what guido said. Snake Dike immediately came to mind. The FA party said (according to written histories) they thought additional bolts would be OK and maybe even a Good Idea for the last couple of pitches. Which has been done. Last time I climbed it there were no mid-bolts in the last two pitches. I slung a couple of knobs. But it's only 5.4-5.5 and not a death fall if you blow it, although it's made hamburger out of more than one bouncing leader. There've been many other instances in the Valley and Tuolumne where the FA party has added/suggested or OK'd added bolts.
I've climbed in Tuolumne since the mid 70's and like many of us Old Farts, still love the challenge of the runout, even on 5.9. As long as I don't think I'm going to end up with broken bones if I come off. Pywiack Dike Route comes to mind where I blew the crux first time for a 60' slider and then went back a few months later, stayed on route and cruised it.
The Boltway above Hermaphrodite flake is an abomination with I think 8 bolts in 150 feet on 5.7 with plenty of rest stances. 5 bolts would still be safe as houses. The Eunuch was a great climb, it just needed new bolts, not added ones.
I think one or two bolts have been added to Crying Time Again since we declined to climb the last pitch a few years ago. I was annoyed that I was not able to finish the climb without risking a death fall. I want to go back now and finish it properly.
Did Pippin a month ago with 40 - 50 foot runout on 5.7 sections but plenty of 5.5 in between. No sweat. Bolts every 20 feet would spoil it.

If you do add bolts, please bolt from a stance and only 2 - 4. Keep it sporting. With 20 - 40 ft runouts on sustained 5.7 I might well go up and do it. Facing a 300 foot fall on steep ground, no way.

so RickA, it's up to you. Keep us posted.
Fred Glover

Edit: I'd like to add that a climb that can be done to the top of the formation is MUCH more interesting than a rap off. I've never considered doing SC because I knew I wasn't going to do the 3d pitch. As to making it too popular? Good routes will become popular, at least until the next outdoor sports fad causes the number of climbers to diminish, or enough climbers die to scare off the noobs. That's no argument for putting up unaesthetic or deathly routes.

August West

Trad climber

Where the wind blows strange

Sep 26, 2011 - 01:34pm PT

With a name like Super Chicken how could you not honor the Chicken and add a few bolts? There is a place for both approaches but given the grade and quality of the climbing of the entire route as you describe it, if you are hesitant to take on the runouts at 5.7 then change the situation as the FA er

What's the problem? You just change the name to Super Chicken Sh**.

I've never been too thrilled with the concept that the FA gets control of bolt placements for all eternity. But given with how much venom that position is advanced, I say, if you want to put some bolts in, in order to change the pitch from a very rare obscurity to something that sees regular ascents, by all means go for it.

cheers

philo

Trad climber

Somewhere halfway over the rainbow

Sep 26, 2011 - 01:46pm PT

Survival you're a weenie, a big, big weenie. But I agree with you.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 26, 2011 - 01:58pm PT

So yer a weenie too Philo?

*whew* I was hoping it wasn't just me.....

philo

Trad climber

Somewhere halfway over the rainbow

Sep 26, 2011 - 02:00pm PT

Hey man the BIG WEENIE CLUB is somewhat exclusive, not everyone measures up.

shipoopoi

Big Wall climber

oakland

Sep 26, 2011 - 02:15pm PT

rick(and others), i have personally gone back to a very select few of my routes and added bolts to them to make the route safer and more popular. a prime example is get into the groove(11A) on medlicott. when i led this pitch originally on stance with 4 bolts it was way run, but that was no big deal. then, after putting up material girl to the left, and borderline to the right, i realized this wall was not accesible to the masses, including most of friends. so, i added 3 more bolts to get into the groove, effectively making it a sport climb. and once the tr is up, the runout routes left and right can be toproped, so i effectively opened up 3 routes to regular climbers.
i didn't ask anybody about it, i just did it because i felt it was right. i really don't think it is a pandora's box where all these first ascensionist from the old days are going to retro bolt their old scary lines. if a few routes get some better pro so cindy, mindy, and mandy can go climb them, it's no big deal. their is still plenty of routes in the meadows to go test your mettle on.

rick, i hope you add those bolts, steve

Rick A

climber

Boulder, Colorado

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 26, 2011 - 02:49pm PT

Jim W- I don’t remember ever setting up a belay on a new route without anchors ( in fact I have a faint recollection of drilling two bolts at the belay), so I am inclined to deny it, being usually rather fastidious about reliable belay anchors. Greg has been up there when he replaced the bolts and there were two old bolts at the belay. The current ST topo (that Greg drew?) shows that the two bolts are 130’ from the second belay. But if, in fact, it happened as you say it did, well, jeez, what was I thinking? Haven’t a clue today. I mentioned in the opening post that memory works in strange ways and there you have it.

Thanks all for the input. I had hoped to get clarity by polling others, but the good arguments made on both sides have me completely flummoxed now. I was initially leaning towards suggesting adding bolts, but am doubtful now.

I said in the Superpin thread that I believed the consensus of the community should be given a good deal of weight in these sorts of questions. What is increasingly clear is that there is no consensus here.
Here is a summary of the arguments:

For retrobolting:
• SC will never be a test piece, with the third pitch having a humble 5.7 rating, and the climb a 5.9 rating overall.
• The 5.7 run out is out of character with the rest of the climb which is well protected. Like having an unprotected pitch in the middle of West Crack on Daff Dome.
• The examples of two 5.7 classics, Snake Dike and West Country. Would it really have been better in retrospect to have left these climbs in their original run out state decades ago and vastly reduced their current popularity?
• Several gurus of Tuolumne, have retro bolted their routes for similar reasons, including Kamps and Steve. (Another guru is conspicuous by his silence here. Long Ago?)
• Reduction of the principle of maintaining the sanctity of the first ascent to the absurd. Werner soloed the route on sight (!!). What if he had soloed it before Jim and I had climbed it? Would we really insist today that only on sight free soloists may repeat the route because there would be no bolts at all?
• The “North American Retrobolting Ethic” permits first ascensionists to alter their original bolting design and it is appropriate to do it here.

Against retrobolting:
• It would not be in keeping with the great tradition of Tuolumne climbing, which values maintaining scary routes in their original condition. (reminds me of my favorite Winston Churchill quote. When Churchill was trying to cut the budget of the British navy, an admiral objected that there would not be enough money to “maintain the great traditions of the British Navy.” Churchill replied, “And what are those traditions? Rum, sodomy and the lash!”)
• Preserve the opportunity for those (apparently very few) wishing to experience the climb in its original state.
• The slippery slope: If we add bolts on SC, it’s only a matter of time before the Bachar Yarian is a boring clip-up.
• Embrace the danger: Don’t make it safer; rather have climbers aspire to be confident enough to lead it as is.
• The history lesson: Runout routes are valuable to demonstrate the way things were in the distant past, before sport climbing.
• Preserve the risk “game” for future generations by following the traditional rules, like the Brits have successfully done on their tiny Gritstone cliffs and the Germans have done in their sandstone areas.

Scratching my head, here.

goatboy smellz

climber

Nederland

Sep 26, 2011 - 03:13pm PT

Don't you have anything better to do Rick?

Are you really going to drive down to Neptune's, buy a couple bolts
and hangers, go get on a plane and fly out to California, then rent a
car drive out to Tuolumne, climb the route (again), then hand drill
and place a couple bolts?

It's almost ski season, time to be getting in shape
for the backcountry:0

Matt M

Trad climber

Alamo City

Sep 26, 2011 - 03:19pm PT

Against retrobolting:
• It would not be in keeping with the great tradition of Tuolumne climbing, which values maintaining scary routes in their original condition. (reminds me of my favorite Winston Churchill quote. When Churchill was trying to cut the budget of the British navy, an admiral objected that there would not be enough money to “maintain the great traditions of the British Navy.” Churchill replied, “And what are those traditions? Rum, sodomy and the lash!”)
• Preserve the opportunity for those (apparently very few) wishing to experience the climb in its original state.
• The slippery slope: If we add bolts on SC, it’s only a matter of time before the Bachar Yarian is a boring clip-up.
• Embrace the danger: Don’t make it safer; rather have climbers aspire to be confident enough to lead it as is.
• The history lesson: Runout routes are valuable to demonstrate the way things were in the distant past, before sport climbing.
• Preserve the risk “game” for future generations by following the traditional rules, like the Brits have successfully done on their tiny Gritstone cliffs and the Germans have done in their sandstone areas.

Most of the "against" points assume that ONE ROUTE in an entire PARK will suddenly open the flood gates to massive Retro Bolting across the board. Frankly, it isn't going to happen. Look at route people have mentioned being retro'd over the years. There's never been a continued increase in that trend. Just occasional chat about a route here and there. The zealous anti-retro crowd is often the loudest and most vocal (esp on forums such as this). Most of the community falls somewhere in the sensible "middle" where having a reasonable distribution of climbs at ALL protection levels is the most logical way to go about it. The reason you see it pop up again and again in TM and the Valley is that there I NOT a reasonable distribution There are FAR too many obscure routes destined to remain so because of R/X ratings.

Also consider: Bolting sucks. It's a LOT of work that most climbers have NO INTEREST in doing. The idea that bolting a 5.7X pitch 3 of a route will lead to the B-Y becoming a clip up is ridiculous. Plain and Simple. If you retro'd 30% of the moderate R/X routes in TM and made it well known that these climbs were now "safe" you'd have FAR FAR less crowding on classic "easy" lines than you do now and STILL have plenty of harder, bolder routes to "aspire" too.

The entrenched mentality that ALL bold climbs need to remain as such will continue to keep vast amounts of rock relegated to the dirt and moss realm. Instead, having a well thought out "progression" of routes gives climbers a path to travel while seeking those aspirational climbs. They can end where ever they choose on the path. As it stands now, there's a limited path to follow. You either crowd the few classics (or not even classic, just "safe") and stay there or jump into the realm of injury or worse. There are many climbs I aspire to get on but the jump between G and R/X is to steep for me as a father and husband.

cragnshag

Social climber

san joser

Sep 26, 2011 - 04:19pm PT

The "slippery slope" arguement is not valid here. What we are talking about on this thread is an FA party adding bolts to a route they climbed in the past. For the slope to be slippery we would need to assume that because several FA party's decided to add bolts, then many more FA parties will do the same. That simply will not happen.

Could the FA-approved retrobolting of routes lead to the "community" wanting or expecting more retrobolted routes? Yes, perhaps. But that does not change the fact that the FA party would still make the final call on the issue. Assuming, of course you respect the FA party and their vision of the route.

You want a slippery slope? How about this example- September 2011: a vocal "community" says no retrobolting ever, even if the FA party wants to do it. Therefore the community is over-riding the wishes and intent of the FA party. Fast Forward to September 2075 and all the old Yosemite climbers of the 1960-1990's are 6 feet under. The "community" now exists of 99% weenified (is this a word?) gym climbers who want to retro everything including cracks. The FA is not there to defend their route, nor is there a tradition of respecting the FA- remember that back in 2011 the "community" decided it knew best?

I think the best way to avoid the weenification (gymification) of our crags would be to respect the wishes of the FA party now and forever. If you let they community over-ride the FA wishes now, then it can happen down the road when the community consists of different players.

jw35

climber

Sep 26, 2011 - 04:25pm PT

Oh.............this is too much fun, I can't resist. The lack of anchor bolts is part of my genetic memory. I can see it like yesterday. I even think my grand kids can remember it. And that was exactly my thought, what were you thinking. Of course if you do add the bolts, even in your more cautious years, you'll have to lead it and place the bolts where you'll feel they'll be appropiate. Which would give them the correct spacing. Whether that be 2 or 20 bolts. Hand drilled of course. It can't be too easy. Wouldn't 20 be fun. As to a consensus or permission..............ain't gonna happen. Just do what you want to do. It's only climbing.

Jim

couchmaster

climber

pdx

Sep 26, 2011 - 04:28pm PT

Both First ascensionists have weighed in suggesting adding bolts.......nice of them to ask the rest of us. As Rick was an original stonemaster, he doesn't need my permission to add a bolt or whatever to one of his routes, nice of JW to add his voice too.

"It's only climbing"

LOL! Nice take on it!

Werner can still free solo it even with the bolts in.

deuce4

climber

Hobart, Australia

Sep 26, 2011 - 04:34pm PT

If anyone is putting in free bolts, perhaps they can retrobolt the Deuceldyke on Half Dome. I reckon it could be a good alternative to Snake Dike if crowded. But it would need to have another 2-3 bolts per pitch to make it "well protected", I reckon.

Hey, what's with the old geezers asking the young guns to add bolts to their climbs?

looking sketchy there...

Social climber

Latitute 33

Sep 26, 2011 - 04:52pm PT

Rick, It sounds like your recent experience with the climb strongly suggests adding a few bolts. A fresh perspective sometimes gives you a better view.

As someone who has climbed the route, yes, adding bolts will change the experience. But, I'm not entirely convinced that it would be a change for the worse. You would still get the feeling of being "out there on the knobs" even if 2 or 3 bolts were added.

If Super Chicken had become a popular trade route and the 3rd pitch regularly climbed as is, well, that would be a different story. But, that isn't the case here.

Go with your gut.

Rick A

climber

Boulder, Colorado

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 26, 2011 - 05:12pm PT

Don’t be so haughty there, grandpa Wilson. I do seem to recall that you did not earn the moniker, “Wild,” by being a paragon of prudence as a youth.

Why don’t you tell your precious grandchildren about how sober and sensible you were when you led the the massively run out crux on our first ascent of Guardians of the Galaxy, put up about the same time on neighboring Lamb Dome?

bergbryce

Mountain climber

South Lake Tahoe, CA

Sep 26, 2011 - 05:32pm PT

Adding a few bolts to this pitch isn't going to make it a sport route.
It will make it a route myself and many others like me would enjoy climbing for years to come.

As others have mentioned, there's no shortage of R and X routes in the Meadows to go test your mettle on.
I don't see this opening any flood gates for adding unwanted bolts on other routes. If anything it's an improvement, akin to Golfers Route, a fine, sporty 5.7 that had a few bolts added if I'm not mistaken, and today many enjoy but still backs off several who just can't stomach the runouts.

I also don't know any climbers who think cracks should be bolted and I'm under 60.

hooblie

climber

from where the anecdotes roam

Sep 26, 2011 - 06:14pm PT

if you just can't get enough of this topic, which is indeed pretty compelling as enigmas go, here is a thread where there has been some airing of opinions on runout leads r or x:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1033771&msg=1033849#msg1033849

pk_davidson

Trad climber

Albuquerque, NM

Sep 26, 2011 - 07:10pm PT

Your partner has given you the clue you need to solve the conundrum:

Just do what you want to do. It's only climbing.

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Sep 26, 2011 - 07:20pm PT

I think this thread is great.

There is no one size fits all when it comes to route development.

I think it's great that an FAist would reconsider a climb and look at it in a new light and take in a variety of opinions to help determine what to do. It shows care and thought. The nature of the questions shows you are taking into account idealism and pragmatism.

Obviously you won't get community consensus on this one, but you will have a more complete list of pros and cons to consider in your decision.

Eric Beck

Sport climber

Bishop, California

Sep 26, 2011 - 07:33pm PT

Adding the bolts gets my vote. I think of this as nothing more than correcting an error. Routes evolve. All of us can think of climbs where the FA party did not find the best line over a section, yet no one feels bound to repeat what should be considered a route finding error. Sacherer and I did hundreds of feet of new stone on the FFA of the dnb.

Add 5 bolts, 25 feet apart.

mike m

Trad climber

black hills

Sep 26, 2011 - 11:10pm PT

How many areas are there where ground up bolting is very prevalent. Retro bolting has gone crazy at Mt. Rushmore a sub area of the Needles that is the same rock. Many if not most were retro bolted by the FA party or with their conscent as I understand it. Many are on spires and while they were retro bolted many new routes went in I am assuming with the use of a power drill as there is soooo many new bolts that I know most were not put in by hand. I know they can get a permit to replace anchors but not to put in new ones. There are now routes that are 5.7 that had 4 bolts that now have 16 on one pitch. Interestingly there are new routes highly bolted right next to the retro bolted routes. Some of these you could clip two bolts right next to each other because they converge at the top of spires. I really don't know how I feel about this as I am not a superbold climber but I think this is an example of the slippery slope even with the FA party giving the OK or doing it themselves. All bolted routes are man made as opposed to a crack route and the different levels of commitment seem to be taken too far on both sides of this issue. My guess is that people will not forget how the route was done origionally, even if retro bolted, that knew in the first place, but many people never knew or never cared. I think places like this(ST) and guidebooks are the way people will remember. Sadly the retrobolters will probably win out in the end as the majority in the future will not want the adventure just saftey. I would rather see a modest amount of bolts added than whole sale bolted sport routes made of these by those that only want saftey.

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Sep 26, 2011 - 11:15pm PT

Mike m, That sucks, because Mt. Rushmore is so pristine otherwise.

Just kidding! But I'm glad Gutzon Borglum didn't get his hands on El Cap!

mike m

Trad climber

black hills

Sep 26, 2011 - 11:18pm PT

I think in the future land managers will get in the buiness of deciding if the amount of fixed gear is appropriate by judging your routes and whether the amount of fixed gear is appropriate. 1984 all over again.

Matt M

Trad climber

Alamo City

Sep 26, 2011 - 11:47pm PT

So to stir the pot a bit...

I agree with the idea that you respect the FAist wishes FOR THE MOST PART.

But what if the FA bolting job is just piss poor? Bolts that will ledge you, slam you in a corner, vary wildly in their correct placement, do not follow the natural line of weakness etc etc?

The flip side of respecting it 100% is that you may be respecting shoddy work...

I've run into this in the past...

Greg Barnes

climber

Sep 26, 2011 - 11:53pm PT

Bolts that will ledge you, slam you in a corner, vary wildly in their correct placement, do not follow the natural line of weakness etc etc?

But you just don't have any worries about any of that when the pitch has zero bolts or pro at all, do you?

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Sep 27, 2011 - 01:43am PT

Being new to this site, seems like threads get ignored or the good ones are argued to the point of a scoreless tie. Anyway, I like what cragnshag said. Let the FA's decide for now and forever. Seem like the majority opinion. Doesn't seem like anyone will be too offended whatever RA decides. Having said this, I'd like to ask shipoopi and the kid if we can add bolts to burning down the house........

Chris Wegener

Trad climber

Los Angeles

Sep 27, 2011 - 02:18pm PT

I think the example of Gritstone or Limestone climbing near Dresden are bad examples. The point there is that there is a scarcity of rock and not maintaining pure standards ruins the climbing for everyone since people will not have any hard routes to challenge themselves.

This is unlikely to happen in TM though I would suggest the routes on Dozer Dome are showing us the way to the future.

We are talking about a 5.9 route with a long (deadly run out (If you slip or a knob breaks near the top the climber is toast. (Not dead, but likely ground meat with multiple broken bones))) third pitch that is 5.7. Two or three bolts will improve this route immensely and open it up to the enjoyment of more climbers.

That is what this is all about. Climbers enjoying themselves. Any other consideration is meaningless. I know, I like others "enjoy" scaring myself s@#$^&s on run out climbs in TM. (Go figure)

Adding a judicious bolt or two to make the climbs safer is not opening the meadows to indiscriminate retro bolting. The community would not stand for it. Rather it is finding the balance to open the joy of climbing to those who have been scarred for life by being introduced to climbing through gyms and sport climbs.

We need to let the new climbers experience the magic that is TM without losing the spice that is the long run out, without having to risk life and limb.

Look at Needle Spoon. The original climb had three bolts. Who did it? Now it is a hard lead that doesn't require the commitment of teenager with nothing to lose.

I say add the bolts.

Regards,

Chris

(I still think 'The Great Pumpkin' needs a bolt on the second pitch. ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist.)

shipoopoi

Big Wall climber

oakland

Sep 27, 2011 - 03:03pm PT

wstmrnclmr, no, don't add bolts on burning down the house. hell, the bolts just got replaced so bob jensen can go get scared on it. LOL i'm sure kurt would concur. this route represents the era, has never seen a second(despite multiple attempts), and was a statement climb for kurt and i. in this case, tradition must be respected. the route is there only for those who have trained their mind to be fearless in the presence of extreme danger, which is what we(kurt, coz, burk, bachar, et al) all did every day. steve schneider

Mangy Peasant

Social climber

Riverside, CA

Sep 27, 2011 - 03:50pm PT

So does anybody ever climb this pitch?

If no one ever climbs it, then what exactly is the debate about?

Or is the debate about the reason that nobody ever climbs it?

rockrodent

Trad climber

SLC, UT

Sep 27, 2011 - 03:56pm PT

PLEASE: don't dumb down the route. Give other's the opportunity to experience it as you once did.

WBraun

climber

Sep 27, 2011 - 04:14pm PT

Let me tell you.

I'm probably the shittiest face climber on the planet.

If I could on-sight free solo Super Chicken then it can't be that hard.

I've wanted to do some routes in Toulomne and knew I was a worthless leader on those harder face pitches.

So I went with the OP of this thread so he would lead them.

So easy to do.

Find a partner who can lead the pitches you can't on the routes you would like to do if one thinks they can't do them.

Either that or you don't do em.

Ya can't do everything ......

Fluoride

Trad climber

West Los Angeles, CA

Sep 27, 2011 - 04:28pm PT

If the FA'ist says yes then do it.

I did this route about 4 years ago. The first pitch was a giant piece of crap, I hated it. But the second (crack) pitch is one of the finest pitches I'd done up there in awhile. We only went as high as the second pitch, didn't think about the third but it was late in the day and getting dark.

Second pitch of Super Chicken is amazing.

orsemaj

Gym climber

Sep 27, 2011 - 05:08pm PT

It is up to the FA party, but I've led it as a 5.9 climber ( I like slabs). I think it should stay the same. There are lots of other climbs around.

mike m

Trad climber

black hills

Sep 27, 2011 - 05:54pm PT

Never been to TM, but looks like lots of climbable rock. Would it not be possible to put a new pitch in 10-20 feet left or right of the origional 3rd pitch that would have better protection. You could call it the Super Fearless variation.

yosemite 5.9

climber

santa cruz

Sep 27, 2011 - 06:09pm PT

I agree that since you did the FA, it's your call. I started climbing it TM in 1986 and have seen a lot of improvements on routes for intermediate climbers. I appreciate the better protected variety that exists now. This sounds like a great idea.

Off White

climber

Tenino, WA

Sep 27, 2011 - 06:26pm PT

Werner, you're at risk of becoming a blithering idiot, that last post was well nigh incomprehensible. Do you think that Rick adding a couple bolts to the third pitch you can scarcely remember soloing a bazillion years ago will tarnish your towering reputation? Do you think everyone should risk 300' falls on 5.7 ground? Do you think the FA party has no input on their route when they've completed it the first time? Honestly, I can't interpret what you think from what you post.

Your unmet friend

Off White

razmonster

climber

Mammoth Lakes, CA

Sep 27, 2011 - 08:53pm PT

I've just read most of the replies to the original post...lots of thought provoking points on both sides. I climbed the route for the first time 4 days ago and thought that the crack was fantastic for moderate climbers. I, like most climbers, didn't bother with the third pitch. I wasn't sure what to make of the dotted line on the topo that went at 5.7. Was it sandbagged 5.7? Would I miss the anchor and climb past it? Did the original route wander a bit or was it a straight shot through a sea of knobs? For a lot of moderate climbers like myself who've climbed plenty of runout routes in Tuolumne, adding a few bolts would make this route a classic. I've always thought that a great and lasting compliment to those who put up a route is when the route becomes a 'must do' if you're climbing in the area. At this point, without any pro on the third pitch, I think the route is undervalued. But again, previous posters have made very persuasive points on why it should be kept as is. My $.02 worth...add a few, keep it spicey, and give it the potential to be a classic on that wall.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 27, 2011 - 10:53pm PT

Fine, don't add bolts.

It will wait for the high grade climbers who have the head for that kind of thing, or

the third pitch will drift into further obscurity.

Moderate climbers will not go there.

If that's what you want, so be it.

It could still cost someone their life.

WBraun

climber

Sep 27, 2011 - 11:08pm PT

will tarnish your towering reputation?

LOL towering reputation? What reputation?

There isn't any, dude, except the one you invented in your head.

Do you think everyone should risk 300' falls on 5.7 ground?

Everyone?

Nobody is going to do that unless they choose to do so.

Do you think the FA party has no input on their route when they've completed it the first time?

I never mention not to bolt it or bolt it. You made that up.

B-Bunny

climber

Sparks, NV

Sep 27, 2011 - 11:13pm PT

I feel that it's kind of snotty for people who climb hard to say "it's just a 5.7...I want to make it dicey" because for them it's simply not dicey at all. The people it's terrifying and potentially deadly for are those who have the adventurous spirit to be up there, leading their first pitch of sketchy, Tuolumne 5.7.

Those people are the ones that will benefit from both the exhilaration of a Tuolumne runout, and the hard-earned relief of making it to that first of two 50 ft spaced bolts.

There's a huge difference between a climb that has potential for a big fall, and one that people have just not properly bolted because it was so far below they're level that they impudently decided that no one who can't climb it straight through deserves to be on it.

PS - I'm not trying to imply that was the route-setters thinking on this, but adding a couple bolts that would make it "just" a possible 100 ft fall down a slab is perfectly reasonable.

Off White

climber

Tenino, WA

Sep 27, 2011 - 11:32pm PT

Werner, I freely admit I made it up because I couldn't understand what you meant, so its hardly surprising I got it wrong, and your obtuse response does nothing to clarify things. Bagwhan, methinks you have a motif of one sort or another.

With regards to your towering reputation, it's a thing that exists outside yourself as a person, and I'm hardly the only myth builder involved. There's Werner who's married to Merry and works in the Valley and WERNER BRAUN who is an enduring comic book icon from the classic "A Climber's Life" Issue #2, a real collector's item. Supertopo is rife with legends stalking the earth with feet of clay, its part of what makes this site charming. I of course can discern the difference between the two Werners by looking through the magic glasses I inherited from Joseph Smith.

Greg Barnes

climber

Sep 27, 2011 - 11:33pm PT

The difference with the Super Chicken runout - in comparison to, for instance, the Dike Route - is that you won't just slide down a slab. On Super Chicken - particularly at the top of the runout pitch - if you fall you will go off the right edge of the arete onto much, much steeper terrain (but not overhung - maybe 75-80 degree terrain with features). So it is much more serious than a very long fall on a slab.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 28, 2011 - 09:00am PT

^Nanny state for climbers?

Kinda like bears in June Lake. Now you're being a smart*ss.

3-4 bolts, 40-50 ft runouts, is hardly a nanny state. RA himself asked this question, it's a good question.

When we did an early ascent of Chartes, there was no fixed gear anywhere, not one. But we were also able to find some pro on every pitch.

A 150 ft pitch with nothing is irresponsible IMO.

drljefe

climber

El Presidio San Augustin del Tucson

Sep 28, 2011 - 09:20am PT

Oh no you di ent! ^^^^ (bear ref. )

Rick. The route is run cuz you were broke, baked, and ballsy. Fine.

If you choose to return, make it safe, not intentionally super run.

I, as usual, am on the fence here.

JPster

Ice climber

colorado

Sep 28, 2011 - 10:55am PT

At long last, a first ascentionist with some intelligence and humility. I applaud adding bolts to older routes that are classic but seldom climbed due to the risk of injury or death. Many ground up first ascentionists will not repeat their own routes due to unacceptable risk. Why..? Well on a gournd up, first ascent, the first ascentionists have no choice but to risk injury or death to get the first (and possibly only) ascent. I know many ground up first ascentionists that WOULD WELCOME RETRO_BOLTING their routes to make them reasonable to climb.

Look, if Superman soloed every route in the world would all others also need to solo those routes..?? I say hell no...!!

As to the previous comment about re-writing Shakespeare --- poppycock. Super Chicken and many routes can and should be retro bolted with the permission of the first ascentionist. Of course, there are many classics that should remain in original conditions like the Bacher-Yerian or the Compressor route in Patagonia (i.e. to remove the bolts on this classic would be as bad as adding bolts to the Bacher-Yerian).

So, kudos to you for proposing the addition of bolts to the 5.7X pitch on a great 5.9 route.

JP

Mangy Peasant

Social climber

Riverside, CA

Sep 28, 2011 - 11:09am PT

To bolt climbs so that EVERY climber out there can get on it, is to re-write Shakespeare so that EVERYONE can understand it.

Not an accurate metaphor. What seems to be often lost in these discussions is that God created the route, not the FA party. The crack/knobs/whatever on this route aren't beautiful to climb because of anything the FA party did.

It's only a climbing route. Life will go on for you.

That claim could be used to argue the other side just as well, no?

Matt M

Trad climber

Alamo City

Sep 28, 2011 - 11:22am PT

There are climbs out there that are NOT for everyone. To bolt climbs so that EVERY climber out there can get on it, is to re-write Shakespeare so that EVERYONE can understand it.

This is a crappy argument. With books, there are PLENTY of alternative for someone to "Read" such that there is no reason to "dumb down" Shakespeare.

In TM and other places, the debate is whether there are enough routes available to the everyman. It's easy to establish there are more than enough runout, bold "Shakespeare" routes. TM us full of them. It's the other routes that are in scarce(r) supply. It's why you see such crowding on select routes and other (most?) fall back into obscurity.

If there were enough "Everyman routes" out there I'd agree that you leave test pieces alone for people to aspire to.

In this case (and many many others)

1) It's not a "Shakespeare" route. Good, sure but an über classic like B-Y or Dike Route? Probably not. So you're not re-writing Shakespeare.
2) It gets little traffic and sounds pretty obscure. You don't hear about people aspiring to climb P3 of Super Chicken.
3) Aspirational 5.7? Really? That just sounds stupid to me. Climbers who are "maxing" out at the 5.9 grade sure as hell aren't "aspiring" to climb 5.7X. They're aspiring to climb some aesthetic rock and get home to their family at the end of the day.

Are R/X routes an endangered species in TM? Hardly. When they start to become the vast minority then I'll join you in staying we must preserve the "bold traditions". But preserving a bilk of routes that NO ONE will climb seems silly. As posted above, it makes sense on the Gritstone etc. Elsewhere, not so much.

Rick A

climber

Boulder, Colorado

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 28, 2011 - 12:24pm PT

Have only time for a quick comment right now, but I wanted to respond to Flouride about the first, “grungy” pitch.

There are several ways to go on the first pitch and apparently there is confusion about which is best. On the first ascent, I happened to choose the far left crack, the large slot with what looks like a roof at the top of the slot. It looks hard from the bottom, but it is not. In the OP picture, it is left of the line of the 2nd pitch crack. It turns out to be easy, well protected and of reasonable quality.

Byran

climber

Merced, CA

Sep 28, 2011 - 12:32pm PT

If there were enough "Everyman routes" out there I'd agree that you leave test pieces alone for people to aspire to.

How easy does a climb need to be to qualify as an "everyman route"? Can an everyman climb a 5.7R but not a 5.7X?

mike m

Trad climber

black hills

Sep 28, 2011 - 12:34pm PT

Rick A., would it be possible to put in a different 3rd pitch that might be well protected and leave the old one as is? If yes is that something that you would think to be a good compromise?

Matt M

Trad climber

Alamo City

Sep 28, 2011 - 12:53pm PT

How easy does a climb need to be to qualify as an "everyman route"? Can an everyman climb a 5.7R but not a 5.7X?

Up for debate of course (hence threads like this) but I consider an "everyman route" a mix of lower difficulty and lower risk factors. Weekend Warrior-with-kids territory. For me this is some mix of PG pro and a difficulty below 5.10b. The closer to 10b you get the more "G" it needs to be. 5.7R MIGHT fit but I'd rather it be better protected. If a knob pops on you (and you could be a solid 10b Weekend Climber) you're gonna get hurt. Period. Not exactly what an "everyman" is looking for.

I think a lot of this debate comes down to risk mitigation. What is an acceptable LEVEL and Frequency of risks in the climbs we have available to us. To some, having a fair amount of risk in EVERY climb is an integral part of all climbing. Minimization of "risk" in climbing to better suit the "masses" is anathema. (A perforative term I despise - I took big risks once but because I now have family responsibilities my seeking of less risky climbs somehow makes me a "lesser" rock climber? I think not).

I see absolutely NO problem with going back and looking at the "bell curve" of climbs and their riskiness. If the curve is massively skewed in one direction (R/X) and yet the climbing population curve is skewed somewhat more in the middle (PG-13 or PG) than why not reexamine where climbs fall (especially if there is a large amount of climbs to work with)

I'll temper my "pro retro" stance with a big CAVEAT. I too dislike in influx of "gym climbers" with a huge expectation of "safe" climbs across the board. For these folks, the curve should be skewed massively to the "G" side of risk. I STRONLY disagree with this and if I thought or observed a huge shift in retro bolting to accommodate this, I'd be right there with all the pissed off folks saying "If you're not up for it, aspire to do it or do something else."

As it stands, I don't think there is ANY risk of some huge dumbing down of the R/X world. Just a wider world view of what a climb and it's risk factors should be...

selfish man

Gym climber

Austin, TX

Sep 28, 2011 - 01:02pm PT

To follow up on this analogy, if Shakespeare decided to go back and change a few lines in his play, should he be denied such an opportunity?

To bolt climbs so that EVERY climber out there can get on it, is to re-write Shakespeare so that EVERYONE can understand it.

Matt M

Trad climber

Alamo City

Sep 28, 2011 - 01:04pm PT

@ Ron:

I'm talking in more general terms and not necessarily about Super Chicken and P3. I wonder about the claim that "many, many" people have done this or that route. Really? Far too many climbs have been reclaimed by nature to support the idea that all but one or two parties a year get on such climbs - if that.

In my approaching 2 decades of climbing I've talked with enough FAist of runout or bold routes to pick up on a few things regarding their "boldness"

A fair amount of the time, the boldness was not intentional or a "statement". Climbers were poor and couldn't afford to bolt a route well enough to reduce the risks. They climbed it anyway but years later offer up that they'd go back and "Fix" it for more to enjoy.

In other instances, the FAist acknowledges the "young and dumb" aspect. Everyone else with too much testosterone was doing it so so did I. Again, they look back and say "man, that was dumb, now very few people get on it and enjoy it."

There certainly are many cases where it was intentionally bold and meant as a statement, then and now. I'm completely for leaving those (and many others) alone.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 28, 2011 - 01:40pm PT

I recall hiking to the base of The Vampire MANY times in the 70's, only to realize that my skills needed work before launching. When I finally did the route in 79, I had the mindset and skills in place, and fired the thing.

Was there protection on this route that you were aspiring to?
Me thinks so.

What makes a climber accomplished is good decision making

Climbers often make poor decisions, even experienced ones. Should it cost them their life?

The mindset of 'go or no-go'.

So what if he gets 2/3 up and his mindset collapses to no-go?

It's only a climbing route. Life will go on for you.

Exactly. That's the idea. Thanks for saying that.

Not adding bolts to Burning Down The House, fine.
It's a route only the super hard will approach, and the FA team doesn't want them.

Adding bolts to SC, fine also. It will make the route approachable, not a potential death fall for the good moderate climber. Plus, in this case, the FA guys are seriously questioning their own pitch. I applaud them.
This would not deny the 5.12 climbers around here who are advocating no bolts anything at all. There will still be plenty of X for them. Cragman, aspire to Burning Down The House. Oh, you don't wanna go up there? Wonder why....

Falling "aint" an option there in my little book.

Then why is there protection on any of them?

kev

climber

A pile of dirt.

Sep 28, 2011 - 01:42pm PT

Rick,

Great thread! If the route was 2-5 years old I would say do whatever you want. However given it's 37 years of history I believe it should be left as it is - whatever you do don't bolt it on rap though!

Regardless of this kick-ass discussion, I suspect if locals don't like it, it will get chopped. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

kev

tolman_paul

Trad climber

Anchorage, AK

Sep 28, 2011 - 01:45pm PT

No offense to the FA team, but I’ve long had a hard time understanding the 5.11 climber who puts up an R or X 5.7 or 5.8. I don’t see how it’s some great accomplishment that should be cherished. Now a 5.10, 5.11 or 5.12 R or X route, that is something to be proud of a test piece that will stand for generations. When someone free solos the nutcracker, or the dike route, it’s a big ho hum. When someone 3rd classes the Rostrum or Astroman, we stand in awe, and rightfully so.

Doing an entire pitch with no pro is a free solo with rope drag, but, it locks up the terrain for future climbers. It’s a like an intermediate ski slope in an avalanche run out, but the ski patrol never blasts it. The expert skier can blast through the run with no fear, but the intermediate skier is putting themselves in the sight of a gun.

My two cents, add some bolts to make the route reasonably accessible and keep within the spirit of the meadows, which IMHO is 2-4 bolts in a pitch. To those that want the full experience, leave your rope at the base and sack up.

Matt M

Trad climber

Alamo City

Sep 28, 2011 - 02:00pm PT

Thanks for the good conversation Ron. A topic like this can degrade quickly. Last time I had it I was on the "anti" side with a young(ish) gym climber and it got less than polite.

I completely agree that a desire (at times) for safety exists at all levels. I too was at a point where the B-Y didn't seem completely unobtainable. That time has long since past but I would NEVER want that option to not be available to someone else to aspire to. That's true for all levels of difficulty. A 5.7R route SHOULD exist so that the 5.9 (or whatever) climber has their own "B-Y" to aspire too.

Where the debate gets murky is what's a good "distribution" of said safe vs X routes.

I truly think it needs to be examined somewhat on a case by case basis.

Never an easy task but one I hope receives a bit more consideration for "safety" than in the past.

If retro-bolts start appearing without well reasoned debate (Especially on better known routes) I'll be right there with you, pitch fork in hand.

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Sep 28, 2011 - 02:02pm PT

It's easy to see why Tuolumne has the tradition of heady climbs.

1 hour away you have The Valley the crucible of standard setting/traditional US climbing. A veritable training ground for top climbers. After 20+ years of ground breaking climbing in the Valley some top climbers moved out to The Meadows. So you have some of the best climbers in the world set loose on virgin territory. So 5.10/5.11 climbers were putting up 5.7 and 5.9 climbs. They created runout climbs because they could. I think that's cool and makes Tuolumne special, but I also think it's cool to have a variety of climbers for climbers of all mental/physical capabilities. Not just the superhero or the everyman, but people in between as well. So some runout climbs, some sporty, some well protected.

Although it's true that there a lot of rock out there, it is a limited resource, and really limited when you factor in climbs with shorter (less than 1 hour) approaches. There's not very many classic lines left with short approaches that haven't been done in 2011 in an area as popular as The Meadows.

The meadows kind of reminds me of the way they develop terrain parks at a lot of ski resorts. You have top notch athletes on the team creating the park features. They make 60 percent of the jumps large, 30 percent medium, and 10 percent small. But when you look at the skiers/riders in the parks it's like 60 percent use small, 30 percent use medium, 10 percent use large. So there's crowds on the easy stuff and very few or no one on the big ones.

But you have the history and style of The Meadows, which is real and should be respected. So I think that there should be routes for all climbers, but they are going to skew to the "heady" side in Tuolumne, more than in most areas.

I guess I still go back to the character of the route argument. In this case if it's tough, well protected 5.9 below, then the 3rd pitch should challenge but not repel a leader who is challenged but capable on tough 5.9. Personally I would do tough well protected 5.9, but not a full pitch of unprotected 5.7 on Tuolumne knobs that are known to break. So I guess my vote is to add a few bolts.

Mangy Peasant

Social climber

Riverside, CA

Sep 28, 2011 - 02:03pm PT

And certainly there are lots of different reasons that run out routes come to be, poor climbers, STONED climbers, BOLD climbers, CRAZEE climbers so on and so forth.

Lol, I've always wondered about the stoned part!

A huge part of who's name is on an FA is just timing. The mountains were there for many thousands of years and then sometime in the 20th century folks got serious about the notion to climb them. The technology and and craft reached a point where many things because "climbable" in the latter half of the 20th century. So the vast majority of the "obvious" lines were first done in the 60s and 70s. A very common characteristic those on FFA lists in Yosemite and other major crags was being born in the 1950s or so. Somewhat arbitrary.

Throw in the crazy advancement of rubber and gear, and it brings up the question of how come the newer generation isn't putting up even MORE crazy stuff. (run out that is..)

The argument that today's generation doesn't have as much sack as prior generations just doesn't hold.

Here's something I read on website called supertopo:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1619713

The reason today's generation isn't putting up runout stuff is that people today generally want to create routes that are repeated. Priorities have changed, not the boldness of climbers.

August West

Trad climber

Where the wind blows strange

Sep 28, 2011 - 02:15pm PT

And this discussion isn't just about Super Chicken. It's about a precedent that could be ushered in that goes against everything that Tuolumne is about.

I'm pretty sure someone (can't quite remember who) on supertopo has told me that the precedent is that the FA, and only the FA, can decide on changing bolts placements.

Or does that precedent only apply when the FA has a "no additional" bolts point of view?

cheers

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Sep 28, 2011 - 02:18pm PT

These days... Moves are considered far more inportant than "headiness" imo.

I think that's true but is it "wrong"?

I think something like Jumbo Love 5.15, or the Free Routes on El Cap are more impressive than bold runout 5.12

It seems the headiness nowadays that impresses is free solos of tough routes (Heaven, Half Dome, etc.)

jw35

climber

Sep 28, 2011 - 02:35pm PT

Well Ricky....................If nothing else, next season Super Chicken will be very popular, both for those who do the 3rd pitch and those who don't. If you ask the same question next year I wonder what the responses would be then. And as to the recklessness of my youth...........the medication is helping that.

Jim

Greg Barnes

climber

Sep 28, 2011 - 03:25pm PT

Here is the approximate location of the Super Chicken anchors (red), plus the neighboring anchors and the single pro bolt on Pussey Paws (all blue). The anchors down and left from Super Chicken are Loco Yokel; the anchor to the right is the final bolted belay on Scorpion.

Mangy Peasant

Social climber

Riverside, CA

Sep 28, 2011 - 04:21pm PT

The Bible has been translated into many languages so that more people can read it.

Why can't people just aspire to learn Hebrew and Aramaic?

Ever heard of Tyndale? Every English-speaking Christian should know who he is. In fact, every Engligh-speaking person should probably know who he is. His actions had a huge influence on the language we speak today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible

Quite controversial in his time.

Perhaps the equivalent of the world's most prolific retrobolter?

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Sep 28, 2011 - 07:49pm PT

August West: ... Or does that precedent only apply when the FA has a "no additional" bolts point of view?

I'd say the complication of note with both this and the Superpin thread is the number of intervening years. Whether adding or chopping, the passage of so much time certainly adds another dynamic wrinkle to the issue.

That was part of the point of the thread I started. I'm guessing the number of older FAists who have changed or abandoned their original ethics / position could easily outnumber those who have retained them, thus potentially opening up a lot of lines for long-after-the-fact retro-bolting.

It would be a very different conversation if Rick were asking about chopping three bolts on p3 after so many years. It begs the question of whether routes as they are don't have their own standing in any argument to alter them decades later.

[ Edit: I don't really think 'ethics' is the issue with Rick's Super Chicken p3 inquiry given his description of the FA. ]

caughtinside

Social climber

Davis, CA

Sep 28, 2011 - 07:58pm PT

But has that ever happened? A FA going back and pulling bolts on a ground up FA to make it spicier? I bet never... and rightly so. The FA got that gear and would now like to force a more runout experience? People wouldn't stand for that BS.

So far as I can tell, the whole 'FA ethic' is largely BS. It looks like a tool to prevent retrobolting except when the FA would like to or is considering retrobolting a route, and then it belongs to the community. And you'll never get a consensus in the community.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Sep 28, 2011 - 08:12pm PT

Maybe after a certain amount of time it doesn't belong to the community or the FA, maybe it has standing as is of and in itself.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 28, 2011 - 10:26pm PT

if you allow this.

If you allow this?

I think the guy that led the pitch on the FA asked the original question.

Should we "allow" him to add a few bolts to his own route?
Even Bachar would be ok with adding a couple bolts to his own route.

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Sep 28, 2011 - 10:35pm PT

Man...that Bachar sure left a void........

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Sep 28, 2011 - 10:51pm PT

Or the older bold.........Ther are plenty of climbers of all ages who can do that climb..I don't think that's the question.

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Sep 28, 2011 - 11:26pm PT

jw35 brings up a good point. I'm climbing the third next year (even though it was on our list) But if RA hadn't asked the question, no-one would have cared. The "classic" part of the climb seems to be the first two pitches. We re-bolted (read no added bolts) "curve like her" and two climbers came up and climbed it after they heard the hammering. Just the replacement brought them up and instant rejuvenation of a great climb was in the works. I look through the R/F guide and there are so many boltless 5.7 pitches on many great climbs. One of the reasons I would want to climb super chicken is because it has that runout 5.7 and the touch of spice it adds! There are many great routes that people only do parts of in TM (Bombs over Tokyo, The Great Circle, etc.). Should these be added to to make them safe or reflect changing times? I'm glad RA put it to the community and still think he can do what he wants, but I like jw35's wait and see attitude. Even though I'm 51, I'm relatively new to the TM experience compared to most here (and certainly the FA'ers) but I cut my teeth on JT, Tahoe, and Taquitz/suicide classics and am getting up to speed on the classics of TM and trying to do my part to re-introduce a new breed to them (through bolt replacement and taking folks on them). There are many forgotten gems. I may be wrong, but RA is still here to tell us how he felt when he first led the climb. Why would anyone climbing as strong as he did at that time put bolts on that pitch? And why didn't many others back then on many routes? Times change but there are many safe routes in TM at that grade and others are being put up to reflect the times. Can't climbs be left alone to reflect what was happening when they were put up? Shouldn't the history of any time be left intact?

WBraun

climber

Sep 29, 2011 - 12:09am PT

It's 5.7 .... WTF man.

On that middle rock you put up the freakin sh'it in my pants run-out that I thought I was gonna die on.

And this thing is piss easy 5.7 you wankers wanna bolt up.

Go ahead i could care less but it's so freakin weird this supertopo place of all this talk and talk blah blah blah.

You all should go up there climb the thing instead of yappin on and on doing nothing ....

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 29, 2011 - 12:12am PT

And this thing is piss easy 5.7 you wankers wanna bolt up.

Piss easy for who Werner? That's the point.

I thought you weren't advocating either way. That's what you said a few posts back.

WBraun

climber

Sep 29, 2011 - 12:17am PT

Like I said Bruce.

Do something.

But do something as ya all have talked this thing ad nauseum but done nothing ....

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Sep 29, 2011 - 01:10am PT

DMT: But routes have no standing in and of themselves or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

After a couple of decades maybe they should.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 29, 2011 - 01:32am PT

But do something as ya all have talked this thing ad nauseum but done nothing ....

This isn't even close to ad nauseum, compared to Wings Of Dead Horse or Growing Down or many other threads.

This is a civil, worthy and important discussion for once.

I'm a thousand miles away, and RA didn't ask me to do anything but bring some opinion. It's his basket.

I just happen to think that it sounds like a great route, which would be even better if some 5.9 climbers thought they could do the 3rd pitch in a reasonable manner.

What good is a 5.7 pitch if only 5.12 climbers do it?

WBraun

climber

Sep 29, 2011 - 01:36am PT

A 5.9 climber can do it easily.

You're just making sh'it up saying it takes a 5.12 climber.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 29, 2011 - 02:54am PT

How many 5.9 climbers have done it?

I see you, Rick and Cragman, none of which are 5.9 climbers.
Who's making sh*t up?

ß Î Ø T Ç H

Boulder climber

bouldering

Sep 29, 2011 - 03:33am PT

SC is not a test piece like the Bachar Yarian or Southern Belle.

They all were probably put up with about the same ethic, not as "testpieces", but just to a high standard let's say. In the threads about Southern Belle, I remember(?) that the last pitch is like 5.9 with no points of protection. That kind of stuff captures my imagination, if nothing else.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Sep 29, 2011 - 08:38am PT

So Dean, you're thinking that this is a 5.7 that should be left for, let's say 5.10 and above climbers?

Of course, I'm sure I can lead the thing. I've done many harder leads and run the rope to the end many times as well. I'm not talking about me. I'm trying to think of the 5.8 5.9 climber that doesn't want to die on a 5.7.

I'm not talking about whether it's climbable, get that through your head. I'm talking about survivable in case something terrible happens.

What I'm saying is that it would be unwise and selfish for me a father of four, to go on a 150 ft unprotected knob pitch. Knobs break.

Is it so bomber that you would go up there and do it, now that you're a dad?

tinker b

climber

the commonwealth

Sep 29, 2011 - 10:12am PT

so someone a page back asked if anyone removed bolts from their routes, and i wanted to say dan mcdevitt did a few months ago. there is a thread here somewhere. he is on a mission to remove bolts from routes he did in the past where there was decent natural gear. most people commended him on his actions.

mike m

Trad climber

black hills

Sep 29, 2011 - 10:47am PT

I also heard but have not seen for myself that South Tower in the Cathedral Spires(Needles) had a bolt removed when the bolts were replaced. Granted the bolt in question was right next to a good crack. The Conns were very bold leaders esspecially for the day and I am not sure why that bolt was there. I think it was an intermediate belay at one time. But given today's gear it probably became obvious that it was not necessary. I do feel that just because you put up the FA does not always mean the best job was done. Another thing is how do we know there was not some great free soloist that flew under the radar and climbed everything that now has bolts. I am willing to bet that manythings that were free soloed perviously now have bolts because no body know. Making a route with bolts is obviously a man made decision its not like God put them there.

Peter Haan

Trad climber

San Francisco, CA

Sep 29, 2011 - 12:50pm PT

What I see here is Ricky returning 37 years later and feeling mildly disturbed by what he had created with Wilson when they were kids. He is thinking of reprising the route with improved intentions. Today a refined law professional of greater moral power and humanity, he is finding this youthful creation bothers him on several levels.

One aspect is the self-contradictory and perhaps inconsistent quality of a wondrous, popular 5.9 crack pitch topped by the wicked trap of a long 5.7x scramble-up that now is sadly ignored for its perils and Category Two fall potential. And instead Super Chicken has transmogrified into a two-pitch rappel-off despite the FA vision of a route in full.

Another is the strange experience he is having of not remembering the climb but only recalling the subject pitch and maybe not even establishing anchors as he belayed Wilson up his 5.7x. Wilson states he apparently was just ‘sitting there’ when Jim arrived.

Finally, I have to think Ricky is reconsidering his coded message of yore: putting up a beautiful and irresistible 5.9 crack pitch topped with a ‘death lead’ 5.7 on Tuolumne chicken heads---what was ‘he saying’ by this ‘tour de force’...? We can assume Ricky is ‘not that kind of guy’ any more! (lol). Granted stopping in a few times to bolt the 5.7 might have been very unattractive at the time for the likes of RA, nonetheless, it would soon be climbed by others.

So for me the discussion is about Ricky returning to the easel and painting in humans now in that landscape. As far as precedent setting, and others have noted copiously, I wouldn’t be worried that we would soon see backhoes trenching up and down the Great White Book because after all that similar route is 5.6x and has to be corrected too. We all agree the first ascensionist has the prerogative to edit his line and we are calmly flattered he asks for opinions…(g). What I have to think Ricky is concerned about too is how he would feel if someone did take a tumble off the pitch. The leader AND the belayer would at minimum be terribly injured and more likely simply not make it.

It might even be a question for him of basic and simple ‘workmanliness’ of the route, the straightforward crafting of it according to protocol and utility. Let’s remember that it is quite possible to be on that pitch in one of our all-too-frequent afternoon electrical storms and showers; no protection would be in, no way of securing yourself in an electrical storm... it would be a big question how that lead would turn out for most climbers stuck in such a situation but capable of leading it when it was nice and dry. Other similar crises are possible too and common enough to consider. So yes it is also a question of how well-crafted that pitch is currently in keeping with the grade of the whole climb.

As for my recommendation on this, I go with Eric Beck and that side of the argument. Craft the route in conformance with our traditions in the US and the rest of the climb; remove the odd and perhaps mean-spirited symbol of a 5.7x surprise lead belonging on top of an intermediate’s route. Although I am all for 3rd classing, for giant runouts and perilous journeys, Super Chicken is hardly the place for such flights to heaven.

Studly

Trad climber

Sep 29, 2011 - 12:54pm PT

Peter says it best.

bergbryce

Mountain climber

South Lake Tahoe, CA

Sep 29, 2011 - 01:07pm PT

end of thread

Peter Haan

Trad climber

San Francisco, CA

Sep 29, 2011 - 01:16pm PT

Ron, not everyone has a guide when they are looking for stuff to do. Maybe a couple climbers were planning on doing another route nearby that they were familiar with but was too crowded today, they don't have a guide with them and are merely looking at other stuff to do while at the base of the wall. The "surprise" is that such a lead on top of a benign, gorgeous, popular 5.9 crack is very unusual and in fact, a hidden trap of sorts, out of keeping with the visible aspects of the climb. You know how people always seem to find trouble?

stevep

Boulder climber

Salt Lake, UT

Sep 29, 2011 - 02:30pm PT

I don't buy the slippery slope argument. Bolts aren't going to start popping up all over TM if this gets done. Nor, for that matter, have rap bolted routes started going in all over Yos following Growing Up.

And Shakespeare is a bad example. At least pick something that is more closely related in age:

Should George Lucas have been able to change Star Wars to have Greedo shoot first?

scuffy b

climber

dissected alluvial deposits, late Pleistocene

Sep 29, 2011 - 04:47pm PT

There is one detail I would like to point out.

First, though, I'll say that I am noncommital on the issue of this climb.
I would like to do it whether bolts are added or not, but chances are good
that I won't get around to it.
The discussion is interesting and civil thus far.

The fact that the pitch in question is the third rather than the first is
relevant. This is not so simple as the Alan Nelson routes or various Bachar
routes which dictate that a climber solo at the grade of the climb.
This is not a matter of forcing a 5.7 climber to put it all on the line,
simply because the climber has already had to climb 5.9 to get there.

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Sep 29, 2011 - 05:49pm PT

I like what Dingus and BES1'st said about all the diversity. But isn't that the point? To try and maintain the diversity? I like all forms of climbing but I do like certain forms more than others. And I don't know why such a hedonistic ritual is so important as to blab on about it as Werner said but climbing is as important to me as world peace. So......should we try to keep that diversity or should we homogenize? STZZO edits well to make his point but left out some things. Shipoopi did say he has gone back and altered routes but he also said that there are routes he does not want to alter such as "burning.....because he feels it strongly represents an important piece of the TM history. Higgens has granted alterations on some but not on others. After reading the input, it seems like we can have both (even though I think we already do). Climbs that stay as they were originally intended and others that can be altered without fear of changing it all (Although there were changes between styles anyway from Kamps/Higgens to Kauk). Most seem to agree that the FA parties have the say. History seems to show that following the wishes of the FA parties has worked well. After all, Bachar changed the belays on the B/Y and nobody complained about the character of that route. Shipoopi, Higgens, RA, Kauk and Barnes et al are among the living fathers of the metamorphosis of the constitution of TM climbing. They also represent changes as well. I trust them to maintain there version of the ethics of the area. The idea being that we keep a cross section of all the diversity intact. I'm not one of the heavies here but I do represent new climbers coming in who appreciate and respect the history and diversity of TM and wish to have a chance to feel that history and diversity.

Greg Barnes

climber

Sep 29, 2011 - 06:51pm PT

Shipoopi, Higgens, RA, Kauk and Barnes et al

I shuddered when I read that...no way do I belong in that grouping. I'm just a 5.10 climber who happens to do new routes (and tends to add bolts to my own routes right away if the climbing is fun and it's consistent with the character of the climb).

Greg Barnes

climber

Sep 29, 2011 - 07:28pm PT

Like others I'm not strongly for or against adding bolts. I like both old-school runout climbs and modern climbs. I replace bolts on routes that have probably never seen a second ascent - but it shows newer climbers that the climbing community values those routes. Even the FAs sometimes wonder why I bother (I replaced Knob Roulette a while back, and the kid just asked me "Why?").

In my opinion, in this specific case, I'd like to see that 3rd pitch with a few bolts. Super Chicken is a very well-known crack climb, one of the classics of Tuolumne, but most people don't even know it goes higher, and pretty much no one does it to the top (my guess is that those who've chimed in about their climbs of it are probably about half of the total ascents ever). This is not one of the classic runout routes of the lower grades - Dike Route, South Crack, Magical Mystery Tour, Breathing Hard, Solitary Confinement, etc. And there are plenty of severe runouts at lower ratings in Tuolumne.

Funny example Dingus, years ago I was up on Wall of the Worlds (or is it War of the Walls?) with 3 others (two teams of 2), and everyone wanted to bail from the base of the face pitches. I wasn't very experienced at that point, but I ended up leading both of them (the second on 1/4" bolts) just because I couldn't face rapping. I should have realized that there was a reason all the experienced folks wanted to rap...

scuffy b

climber

dissected alluvial deposits, late Pleistocene

Sep 29, 2011 - 07:39pm PT

Del cross: The difference is that the 2nd pitch has already required
someone to lead a 5.9 pitch, so there is some margin inherent.
If this were a 5.7 unprotected one pitch climb, then it would be more
restrictive, more or less off-limits to 5.7 and 5.8 climbers.
Now, I am not saying that any 5.9 climber ought to be able to keep it
together and lead that unprotected 5.7, but a 5.7 climber is not going to
be faced with leading this pitch.

bob

climber

Sep 29, 2011 - 07:54pm PT

Respect the FA party. Simple.

Bob J.

WBraun

climber

Sep 29, 2011 - 08:13pm PT

Hey .....

Hey You.....

Ya you ...

Ya can't bolt anything unless we say you can.

Yuk yuk yuk ...... :-)

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Sep 29, 2011 - 09:31pm PT

Greg Barnes. What I was trying to say is those climbers who've had an impact and also helped "change" the landscape of TM. Maybe I'm not a good enough writer to get my point across. What I've been trying to say is it takes all sorts of creatures to make the reef complete. And all those creatures are unique. There are ground up, hand drilled from stance climbs to well protected sport climbs. Look at Medlicott. You've got ground up horror shows over melted bolts whose names are long forgotten,aid lines that nobody remembers to Peace. And you, Greg have put up several wonderful,popular well protected moderates which are a change from the unprotected moderates of the past as well as being a leader in preserving those climbs by updating the protection. All of these styles are equally important to the fabric of TM and you have been at the front of preserving the history of ALL climbs regardless of style. A great community service! There are many different styles of climbing represented in TM and I just think those things that are unique should be preserved. I like some "world music" but Dark Side Of the Moon will always be my favorite traveling record. And I sure hope they don't go back an re-mix it.

Guck

Trad climber

Santa Barbara, CA

Sep 30, 2011 - 12:55am PT

Slippery slope it is! If the rationale is to make the route safer, then why not bolt the last pitches of South Crack. One could also run cables along Snake dike to turn it into a great Via Ferrata for aspiring climbers! There is no end to this. There are two components to the debate, one about control and the other about the reason why we climb.

The main issue behind this discussion is the "ownership" of the route. While we could all argue one way or the other, the climbing community seems to forget that climbers do not own the rock. The general population does. If the bolting craze is not stopped, we will end up with grid bolts on every face. The non climbing community -vastly greater than the climbing one- will have its way and require that climbers remove their bolts. Non climbers appreciate the rocks as much as climbers, in a different way. To the non climber, bolts on a rock are the same as graffiti on a wall! We as a community must be very careful about the consequences of bolting as we cannot fight public opinion who will clamor for an end to bolting and restoration of the rock to its natural state. Ignoring the other constituents will lead to restrictions on climbing. Do we really want to bury our collective head in the sand and wake up when the NPS bans climbing in some areas, require a climbing license and climbing fees?

The second issue is spiritual. Most of us on ST are old geesers who might not climb in 10 years. Our vision is too focused on the short term.
In the long run, if the current trend continues, sport routes will be dominant everywhere (using the safety argument). Climbs will become an extension of the gym. Something will then be lost; The traditional climber had to know his limits, had to be able to judge the difficulty of the climb, had to learn how to place and trust his gear, had to understand and respect the mountain. The new breed will only experience the physical part of the climb, leaving out the spiritual part that is at the core of climbing. More bolts means less commitment, less spiritual connection with the rock. The beauty of climbing is that it forces you to face yourself. We all are scared at some point, and learn to dominate our fear. That inner battle is tied to the risk involved, regardless of our climbing ability. Removing the risk is removing some of why we climb.

I am not ready to lead Super Chicken, and if I really want to do it, I will have to have my head together first. I chose not to climb that last pitch, and everybody else has that choice.

Mike Bolte

Trad climber

Planet Earth

Sep 30, 2011 - 12:59am PT

nothing really to add here, but thaDood's post reminded me of those excellent days in the meadows before the first reid and falk guidebook. Very few climbers up there. You'd talk to people and hear about a new route here or there, go take a look, find the first bolt or two and go for it. Really gave you the sense of living life full. He is correct that you assumed it would be run out.

An added bit of spice in those days was you did not have a good idea of how many bolts or approximately where they were (no topos) and sometimes you missed one. Spent a lot of time squinting for all you were worth, thinking there had to be one close. Sometimes you would be looking down to see how ugly the fall might be and damn, there was a bolt 10 feet below and off to the right that you had climbed right past.

mike m

Trad climber

black hills

Sep 30, 2011 - 01:10am PT

Could people just do a different more well protected 5.7 in TM I heard there is more climbing there but haven't actually been there myself so it is hard telling not knowing.

Rhodo-Router

Gym climber

welded to my bike seat

Sep 30, 2011 - 01:52am PT

Tough call.

On the question of the alleged slippery slope: adding a couple bolts to an obscure topout pitch will certainly nudge us a bit further towards the edge we all fear. Just not very far, IMO, and this one isn't going to be the nudge that gets the trundle going.

The fact that Rick is even asking people what they think reflects the changing character of the times, and of the first ascentionists themselves. Many here have chimed in to the effect that to every style of climbing there is a season, and what with the kids and the mortgage and the goddam Christmas party coming up, well, it would't be right to see it all go down the tubes on account of a broken knob. This stuff doesn't even occur to your average 20-something with a drill bit in his pocket on 'easy' terrain: "It's easy, and we already did the part that looked so good from the ground, so let's put 'er to bed." I can personally attest to the shortsightedness of the young male homo sapiens- never thought I'd see the far side of 30. If you'd asked me, though, whether a new route should reflect these concerns(kids, mortgage, knob), I'd have said something like 'tough shite', heat/kitchen, up your game, blah blah blah.

Surprise! Not sure I buy that any more. That season of life is in the rear-view now, if not entirely gone. Rick's even older. The fact is, we all spend a lot more time in the kid/mortgage years than in the flower of heedless youth, and Ricky just wasn't there yet. Those two outlooks are so far apart that they're damn close to being two different people. 1974 Rick has become just another thoughtless elitist to 2011 Rick.

My bottom line, though: it's the FA's call. This is our system, and the people in question are clearly smart and thoughtful folks, elders of our tribe. I trust their judgment. If they hadn't asked our 'permission' , but merely forgiveness after the fact, I suspect the response would have been along the lines of a collective shrug, Maybe a raised eyebrow here and there.

It's a bit late for this, though, after 37 years. Don't let me see you boys in this office again.

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Sep 30, 2011 - 02:42am PT

Sounds like the FA decision is the ethic and it does seem to work. And when I go to climb it next season, there may be bolts or not and it won't matter 'cause it'll be up to me to clip them or not. Thanks for letting a rookie have a go in the discussion.......

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Sep 30, 2011 - 12:16pm PT

I now think my previous wavering vote was in part based on my own desires. I haven't climbed the route so I retract and go back to undecided.

Is the decision getting any easier?

I do think this is more about making the climb "better" as opposed to "safer". It's safer to skip the 3rd pitch than to do it with a few bolts. Looking at the route in it's entirety if the third pitch is out of character and few do it would the route as a whole be better if there was reasonable but sporty pro? Or is that third pitch a really fun mental test piece that complements the pitches below? Like I said I haven't done it, so I'm back to undecided.

Also, in this case the FA team is willing to modify their route, perhaps to make it more enjoyable for more people. But many years in the future when the FA teams are gone we won't have that choice for many routes, so perhaps that is another "pro" for adding bolts.

crunch

Social climber

Sep 30, 2011 - 12:54pm PT

This is an excellent thread. Thanks to Rick A for starting it.

I can see great points on both sides.

One thing:

Regarding Snake Dike: this was, in fact, retrobolted after the first ascent. The FA party used the exact same argument for this as the argument posed in the first post, upthread, about Super Chicken; ie they could see that Snake Dike could be a great, classic Yosemite 5.7, but was too runout to ever be popular with 5.7 leaders. So they went back and added a few bolts.

So Snake Dike is perhaps a strong argument AGAINST the slippery-slope theory.

shipoopoi

Big Wall climber

oakland

Sep 30, 2011 - 03:05pm PT

truly a great thread, but one thing bothers me...the part about the FA owning the climb. a few years ago, tom frost told me(when i asked what he thought about me adding a bolt on an A3 section of the North American wall to make it go free at 13a), that nobody owns the rock...and that just rings so true that i took it as gospel.

Of my first ascents with bolts in TM, i consider myself as a steward of these routes, trying to replace the old 1/4" bolts, and rarely, as i have said, retrobolting routes mostly to make them runout friendly.

"NOBODY OWNS THE ROCK" - TOM FROST

shipoopoi

Big Wall climber

oakland

Sep 30, 2011 - 03:15pm PT

BITD, when Ron Kauk and tom herbert switched over to rap bolting, i thought it was all over, and that rap bolters would cover medlicott with a grid of bolts...but that never happened. it's still tough to put up hard routes and send them. so, Kauk ended up rap bolting two whole routes on medlicott, and
tommy did not rap bolt on medlicott at all, so my fears of a similiar slippery slope, of rap bolters going wild everywhere, were unfounded.

point being, a few bolts added to super chicken isn't going to put us over any edge. it's just not a big deal. Nothing bad is going to come out of it. it's totally ok. shipoopoi

WBraun

climber

Sep 30, 2011 - 03:21pm PT

"NOBODY OWNS THE ROCK" - TOM FROST

Now who is this Mr Nobody ..... ?

Peter Haan

Trad climber

San Francisco, CA

Sep 30, 2011 - 04:39pm PT

Yeah, nobody owns the rock of course. No question! But out of courtesy and trying to do things within a friendly and smart community, appealing to the group for feedback shows loads of class----stuff that Accomazzo has tons of, and many others do too; you too certainly, Steve. Our art, sport and game takes place within a community of sorts, and lots of the crappy-dumb ideas don't get put into motion because of feedback, thank god. By seeking responses, we also build a better group, and avoid kooky dramas. We are more likely to hear keen ideas and important info also.

jstan

climber

Sep 30, 2011 - 05:09pm PT

Maybe this climb is the testpiece needed by people in the process of getting their head together? From the posts it sounds ideally designed for just that. I have backed off climbs for that reason. Probably the most important skill a climber needs to acquire.

Even more important than learning how to climb.

scuffy b

climber

dissected alluvial deposits, late Pleistocene

Sep 30, 2011 - 05:49pm PT

In 1989 or 1990, Dan Michael and Craig Reason spent most of the summer
working on a line on Medlicott. Eventually they seemed to give up on it,
pulled their bolts and left.
Did their line become an established climb, like maybe Raging Waters?

Mike Bolte

Trad climber

Planet Earth

Sep 30, 2011 - 06:54pm PT

scuffy b - I bet shipoopoi can answer that one

scuffy b

climber

dissected alluvial deposits, late Pleistocene

Sep 30, 2011 - 07:42pm PT

that's behind my timing, Mike.

shipoopoi

Big Wall climber

oakland

Sep 30, 2011 - 09:41pm PT

scruffy b, dan and craig did not pull their bolts, but they threatened to, and apparently conned the young tommy herbert to buy the route and pay for the bolts, or they would pull them out. when tommy gave up on it, he treid to sell the route to me, and i said bullcrap, i aint buying nothing. but tommy got so tweaked on it that if I didn't pay up, then he was going to pull out the bolts. finally, i relented, paid tommy, and after much work, i sent raging waters, called it 13d(i'm sure it's at least 14a).

and i was always pissed at dan michaels and craig reason for selling thier route. i mean, if you are going to come into tuolumne, and not plan on returning(i mean, i've never seen them again), you can damn well leave your rap placed bolts in situ and not to be so cheap as to go charging people for the rights to it. i mean, if you can't do it, just leave it as an open project.

incidentally, when bachar was to have said that this line would never go, michaels and reason were calling the route Never Say Never. so tommy jumps on it with the working title peristoika(sp?) for the the new russian way of acceptance(as in rap bolting in trad territory). then i called it raging waters for the fun water park in SLC i went to the day before the snowbird comp that year, and to represent some of the turmoil that this routes history repesents. poopoi

socalbolter

Sport climber

Silverado, CA

Sep 30, 2011 - 10:00pm PT

Steve-

Louie Anderson here. I've done many of your lines in the Meadows and failed on a handful of the others. All of them (success or failure) were great experiences in a beautiful location. I know this is a bit of a thread drift, but I've often wondered what were the favorites of your routes there, and why?

If this isn't the appropriate place to answer, maybe start a new thread.

Hoping to read your thoughts about the routes...and thank you for all of the fine routes that you (and others) have brought to us - much appreciated!

WBraun

climber

Sep 30, 2011 - 11:13pm PT

apparently conned the young Tommy Herbert to buy the route and pay for the bolts, or they would pull them out. when Tommy gave up on it, he tired to sell the route to me,

LOL hilarious .......

nature

climber

back in Tuscon Aridzona....

Sep 30, 2011 - 11:29pm PT

TFPU

drljefe

climber

El Presidio San Augustin del Tucson

Oct 1, 2011 - 12:21am PT

RickA-
If you do decide to bolt, you gotta use these-

You could probably buy them off shipoopi ;-)

Thrutchmo

Mountain climber

South lake Tahoe, nv

Oct 1, 2011 - 12:08pm PT

I am not a big fan of any X routes; make it an R. Just because a bolt is there you do not have to clip it.

Doug Robinson

Trad climber

Santa Cruz

Oct 1, 2011 - 04:50pm PT

Yeah, add a few bolts.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Oct 1, 2011 - 05:26pm PT

Just because a bolt is there you do not have to clip it.

Sure indicator of 'missing the whole point'.

Doug Robinson

Trad climber

Santa Cruz

Oct 1, 2011 - 06:27pm PT

I disagree.

In fact I've been thinking that just because a piece of rock has been soloed shouldn't take away the opportunity to put a roped route up it.

Was thinking that last summer when I climbed Magical Mystery Tour and stared out over all that beautiful slab to the right of it.

To say that soloing a line locks it away forever from any less death-defying ascent strikes me as "misappropriation of resources." I'm starting to like that phrase. Who gave anyone that right?

Soloing is extreme; does it have to be selfish too? Werner's Wiggle grew bolts after its FA, and I sure enjoyed less perilous access to the real estate of that resource.

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 1, 2011 - 07:15pm PT

Kudo's Shipoopi for adding to the history of the meadows by telling the story of "Raging Waters' here

Stuff like that really should get copied over to a "first ascenders's story registry" that people can mess up with thread tangents

Peace

karl

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Oct 1, 2011 - 07:19pm PT

I disagreed with DR about the Growing Up deal, but he's right here.

Keep it pure and adventurous can be taken to the extreme. Why put pro on anything? Don't we want it to be pure?

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Oct 1, 2011 - 07:20pm PT

Karl, I wholeheartedly agree. The main problem with guidebooks is they tell you everything about a route you can figure out for yourself and none of the story of the FA which you can't usually know on your own.

I can figure out the difficulty and gear on my own - what I always want to know, but never hear, is the story of the FA of routes I jump on. I fear we are leaving a legacy of relatively meaningless numbers while losing all those [priceless] stories.

dee ee

Mountain climber

citizen of planet Earth

Oct 1, 2011 - 10:10pm PT

Add 5 bolts to the pitch.

Edit: Sorry to come into the middle of the discussion but see above.

G_Gnome

Trad climber

In the mountains... somewhere...

Oct 2, 2011 - 12:26am PT

Leave it alone, it has done fine on its own for a long time, leave it alone. Let others test themselves on it the way you did.

powderdan

Social climber

mammoth lakes

Oct 2, 2011 - 02:55pm PT

i think toulomne would be a much funner place to climb overall if there were more safe routes. that goes for moderates as well as hard routes although its curious how much safer most hard pitches are(?!)than easy ones. imagine if we still climbed exclusively gound up. times have changed.as long as were placing bolts....free the rock for competent leaders.yosemite granite belongs to all of us and not exclusivley to 5.12 climbers who can comftorabley solo 5.9.
ps im not condoning retro bolting the BY...its easy to toprope solo!

Rick A

climber

Boulder, Colorado

Topic Author's Reply - Oct 2, 2011 - 06:02pm PT

Much food for thought here and I appreciate all the ideas. We who treasure TM have a responsibility to think about the effect of our actions on the present community and future climbers, even with respect to an issue as trivial as a few bolts on an obscure third pitch.

Here is one idea suggested by the discussion above. Let’s say there were added three bolts, so that there were 32 foot (130/4) run outs between bolts. Still exciting for the 5.9 leader, especially given Greg’s observation that you could fall off the edge of the arête, but no longer deadly. Paint these new bolts yellow, in keeping with the chicken theme, as Steve suggested.

If you do it without the chicken bolts, you did Super Chicken, if you clip the yellow bolts, you did the “weenified” (great new term) variation, Chickens**t.

Increased traffic on that third pitch might be nice because it would open up this pitch for intermediate climbers, but is it a good idea in the longer view? Maybe it is for the best that the upper part of the route sees little traffic, since to escape traffic is one reason we seek out places like TM.

I have had to give some thought about my motivation for running out new routes in those days, especially in light of Jim's and Peter’s posts. Competition was a factor. Like the generations before us, we competed with each other in both difficulty and self-control in dangerous situations, so there was some of that involved.

But part of the motivation was idealism. I started climbing in 1971, the same year that Reinhold Messner, likely the greatest mountain climber of all time, wrote an influential article in Mountain Magazine, the “Murder of the Impossible.” He wrote,

Expansion bolts are taken for granted nowadays; they are kept to hand just in case some difficulty cannot be overcome by ordinary methods. Today's climber doesn't want to cut himself off from the possibility of retreat: he carries his courage in his rucksack, in the form of bolts and equipment. Rock faces are no longer overcome by climbing skill, but are humbled, pitch by pitch, by methodical manual labor; what isn't done today will be done tomorrow. Free-climbing routes are dangerous, so they are protected by pegs. Ambitions are no longer built on skill, but on equipment and the length of time available. The decisive factor isn't courage, but technique; an ascent may take days and days, and the pegs and bolts counted in the hundreds.

See Steve’s thread on the article here: http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=852835&tn=0

It is a fact that with a bolt kit and enough bolts, you can get up anything in Yosemite or TM. Back in those days in Yosemite, the equivalent of the Wings of Steel controversy was the debate over the Dawn Wall and whether excessive bolts were used to put up that route on El Cap. For me and my circle, it was a goal to use as few bolts as possible. We weren’t thinking about future ascents, or whether the route would be popular 30 years later, but we didn’t want to carry our courage in our rucksacks.

I would have loved to have done Super Chicken with no bolts, but 5 was not a bad day’s work for that long a route (and Jim placed 3 of those :) ). Accounts still differ on how the belay bolts at the top of the third pitch got there. But if Jim is right that originally that pitch had no protection or belay bolts, what may have motivated me was taking the principle of bolt avoidance a bit too far.

The season is over in TM. I’ll be back up next year and I think I’ll wait until then before making a decision. Quite a few on this thread have done the complete route and maybe a few more will do so and report back with fresh observations.

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 2, 2011 - 06:14pm PT

For me and my circle, it was a goal to use as few bolts as possible.

I guess the issue comes when top climbers put up routes far, far, far below their limits and those routes are then deathly dangerous. It's like pretending a man with a gun and a deer with fur are evenly matched opponents.

So if you're pickin' on somebody your own size, run it out! But otherwise time has shown that x-rated moderate routes in Tuolumne are not popular with those capable of doing them with any confidence. The first ascent party and a few teams after it get an adventure and bragging rights but everybody else is chasing other glory

Peace

karl

Bldrjac

Ice climber

Boulder

Oct 2, 2011 - 06:23pm PT

Rick,

I've done the route. Keep it as it is. The grade is very moderate and in Tuolumne Meadows the climbing history and style is all about adventure and not convenience. You were on the FA so you have the right to change it but for my vote I say, leave it be.............Too many routes are getting retrobolted these days...........

JACK

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Oct 2, 2011 - 06:28pm PT

Could not agree with you more Karl. It's fine for good climbers to run out pitches that are easy for them but it's ego gratification of a low form for them to object to having the route made safe for lesser climbers. Jim Erickson is notable for allowing a few bolts to be added on Hairy Pin, opening up a fine route for 5.9 climbers by making it safe without removing all of the spice.

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 2, 2011 - 07:46pm PT

I can sympathize with people who speak as Cragman does as long as they have actually walked the walk.

Personally, after developing that confidence, I found most satisfaction in just soloing routes. I don't get why somebody would want to do X-rated no bolt pitches and take the trouble to bring a rope and stuff unless they wanted to give a buddy a top-rope on it.

I just don't see it happening. Here's a fine route and almost nobody on this board has done it except for a few back in the day and even those were exceptional climbers doing something well below their level of challenge. TONS of us would have done it if it was safe and many of us would have done it if it was just spicy and I'm sure I'd be one.

Yeah, when I lead a 5.6 no pro face, it makes it more exciting but big deal, I still sweat a lot less than a 5.8 climber leading it with 4 bolts.

So Cragman, I can't remember, have you done many of these x-rated Tuolumne routes? If the answer is "no but I aspire to" then I'd like to hear from other 5.10- climbers out there, how many of you aspired to do the x-rated routes and now are doing them?

Cause I used to at least, but still wouldn't (in my mind) selfishly begrudge a few more moderate R- routes to people more challenged by the grade (which is MOST climbers)

Somehow, there's hardly ever a line on the 5.10s and above

peace

karl

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 2, 2011 - 08:11pm PT

Fair enough bro!

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Oct 2, 2011 - 08:37pm PT

.............Too many routes are getting retrobolted these days...........

Which ones in Tuolumne would those be?

The safest thing for the belayer on pitch 3 of this route would be to hold the leaders rope until he got about 50 feet away and then take it off belay. Tie back in after he makes the anchor.
Will it be ok if we do it that way Dean?

This is as dangerous for the belayer as the leader. You don't want me to have to try and hold a 250 foot fall do you?

For me, that is sublime.

You can do that soloing anywhere right? You wouldn't want me holding the rope if you come off up there I'm sure.

tom Carter

Social climber

Oct 2, 2011 - 08:51pm PT

Come on... This is kooky.....as TM has told us, " you could fall so far you'll NEVER hit the ground!!!

Could happen.

Imagine that!

Safety kooks, runout kooks, drama kooks ...we got em all.

Much respect for Rick. He was setting the bar bitd.

I like all types of routes including ones that require mental calmness.

The meadows is a special place. Let's make sure a variety of challenges remain -for all.

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 2, 2011 - 09:52pm PT

I think the telling point is that Rick A, whom John Long as spoken of with awe as being head king of the stonemasters for super runouts, in his OP noted that he wasn't himself up to lead that last 5.7 pitch. Surely it wasn't a question of conditioning, This is slab climbing. If Rick baulked at it, I think its over the top

But, there's something you can do when the pro gets scares and balls shrivel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKss2pBYQ6Y

Peace

Karl

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Oct 2, 2011 - 10:22pm PT

At this age, and all that comes with that, the roped style makes more sense.

I agree. So what shall we do about this pitch?

Bruce, does this mean you are coming out? Hope so!

I'll be there sooner than you think bro. I'd love to do this thing, but not with any 150 runouts.......

Well Bruce, after my last solo I promised my wife (again) that I would not do anymore soloing. Then John's death finally cured me.

That's my whole point Dean. I've got a lot of respect for you, but I don't want to hold the rope when you're that far out. Will you hold the rope for me when I'm 140 ft out?

WBraun

climber

Oct 2, 2011 - 10:27pm PT

When one holds rope on leader 150 feet out and leader falls, belayer just lets go of the rope ....

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Oct 2, 2011 - 10:50pm PT

I'll lead Bruce.

Thanks Dean. That isn't exactly what I asked. Do you want me to still be holding the rope when you're 140 ft out?

If so, why?

If I was 140 ft out, sketching, would you want to be holding that rope?

Be honest.

Mangy Peasant

Social climber

Riverside, CA

Oct 3, 2011 - 07:52am PT

150 feet is not runout - it's a solo. Unless there's nothing but air 150+ feet below. Most moderates routes aren't that steep.

Survival, I'm not sure what point you are making about belaying someone 140 feet out. Are you saying there will be a lot of force on the anchor if you have to catch the fall? It's still a fall factor 2, no matter how far the fall. Force on the anchor is the same whether you fall 20 feet or 200.

(the real problem is the falling climber is prolly going to hit something before the rope catches them...)

But nobody's gonna fall. It's only 5.7, right?

G_Gnome

Trad climber

In the mountains... somewhere...

Oct 3, 2011 - 10:45am PT

Are we also going to be adding bolts to the last pitches of Piece of Grass, or The Gram Traverse, just to mention two routes that have no bolts on their top pitches?

The first day I ever climbed with Kris Solem we did Piece of Grass. When I was leading the third pitch I am about 100 feet out with no bolts and Kris shouts up to me that if I fall off he is just going to cut the rope because the two manky 1/4" bolts will surely not hold my fall. I told him 'Yes' and knew that I had found a sensible partner. But I would not want to see any bolts up there because then that experience will not be there for any one else.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Oct 3, 2011 - 11:42am PT

Survival, I'm not sure what point you are making about belaying someone 140 feet out

The point is that I have no interest in catching a 280 ft fall, possibly with a dead body on the end of it. Do you?

It's highly unlikely that a 20 footer and a 280 footer will have much in common, in the final chapter.

And since no one is going to fall, there's no NEED for me to belay that line. I'll just tie back in after Dean clips the anchor.

The point is that I'm trying to get some people to think here.

Guck

Trad climber

Santa Barbara, CA

Oct 3, 2011 - 12:36pm PT

Mangy Peasant, your point out that the force on the anchor is the same whether you fall 20 feet or 200. It is mostly correct, as the longer the fall, the more stretch on the rope. Many alpine climbers, including myself, have held 200" falls. That is not a pleasant experience as your hand can get burned. The steeper the climb, the less the chance of hitting the face.

What I hear from the discussion is that many of us have changed our views on risk as we grew older. What was acceptable to us as young punks is not to a typical family men. Changing the route by adding bolt(s) is in a way selfish on the part of the old crowd, as there are many young punks out there who will want to take the challenge. I really wonder how many of us from this forum will actually go back to do the third pitch if bolts were added. I bet just a handful!

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 3, 2011 - 12:39pm PT

all this talk of taking a HUGE leader fall is funny. HOW MANY of you have ever taken a fall on tuolumne knobs?? Probably not many.. Its NOT a place to fall at...for the most..

Dude, that's because so few people actually do these routes with no pro. People fall all the time on Tuolumne Knobs and the sport climb, Bachar Yerian, has seen many falls, but fortunately has a few bolts per pitch.

If you've got a roped party, there's time for it to start to rain, and on a face pitch with no bolts, it's only 5.7 if you take a good line. Off route, could be much harder
Peace

karl

scuffy b

climber

dissected alluvial deposits, late Pleistocene

Oct 3, 2011 - 01:04pm PT

Thanks for the Raging Waters story, Steve.
I had a lot of breakfasts with Dan and Craig that summer.
Very pleasant guys, who displayed much less ego than other hot climbers
that I have been exposed to.
When they were getting ready to vacate, they simply told my partner and me
that they were pulling their bolts out.
I didn't realize the implications or the back story. No clue of threats or
trying to sell it.

I believe it was just a few months later that Dan was severely injured in
Europe.

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Oct 3, 2011 - 01:25pm PT

Changing the route by adding bolt(s) is in a way selfish on the part of the old crowd, as there are many young punks out there who will want to take the challenge.

I would guess there are many, many more people young and old who would climb the third pitch with a few bolts, than folks want the challenge of no pro. Not saying that is an iron clad reason to change it, just sayin.

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 3, 2011 - 01:32pm PT

Somehow Ron, the argument that protection isn't necessary because nobody ever falls on 5.7 is suspicious

particularly if the argument is that they never fall on 5.7 because falling is unthinkably dangerous because of lack of pro

to me, it's just more elitist talk trying to keep gumbies out of the Climbing area, not just "upholding the traditional historical nature of the area" Times change. Yosemite Valley has adopted techniques unthinkable in it's past and so has Tuolumne. They just bolt up the 5.11+ and especially the 13s

Peace

Karl

August West

Trad climber

Where the wind blows strange

Oct 3, 2011 - 02:00pm PT

Was thinking that last summer when I climbed Magical Mystery Tour and stared out over all that beautiful slab to the right of it.

To say that soloing a line locks it away forever from any less death-defying ascent strikes me as "misappropriation of resources." I'm starting to like that phrase. Who gave anyone that right?

I'm with you on all the beautiful slab and "misappropriation of resources".

You can get high up on the Glacier Apron not doing moves harder than 5.9+. But you can't get up there, with what I would consider a reasonable risk level, if you are a 5.9+/10- leader. I've always wished there was a long route there for the slab newbish, 5.9 leaders.

As far as who gave anyone that right that's pretty simple.

The bolt cutters.

Wade Icey

Trad climber

www.alohashirtrescue.com

Oct 3, 2011 - 02:07pm PT

Do what thou wilt...

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 3, 2011 - 02:13pm PT

I would think it to be a no brainer that by adding say SIX bolts to that last pitch, it would become an instant "classic" on mtn projects lisitng,, a "must do". Ive always wanted to do the RR on fairview,,,but,,,,I have never climbed in a line and will never climb in a line, so ill probably never do the RR on fairview. Carefull what ya wish for....

I'd argue that moderates like the RR on fairview are so crowded because there are so few routes with reasonable pro in TM. You're assuming that if people don't climb the chicken route, they'll simply sit at the grill, no, they'll wait in line for something with no death in the cards

Shagadelic isn't a "sport" route but close by tuolumne standards. Tons of new routes on Dozier now have reasonable pro. Almost nobody is putting up death routes in TM anymore, it's just that the classic lines were done long ago

Peace

karl

Mike Bolte

Trad climber

Planet Earth

Oct 3, 2011 - 02:47pm PT

When we are making plans in the campground for what to climb the next day in the meadows, we make the list and talk and if someone says "that one is pretty old school" everyone knows what that means. If an old school route gets on the list, everybody knows there is going to be a little extra adventure involved and the anticipation is heightened.

I think it really adds to the mix to have some "old school" routes. Of course a couple of bolts on the last pitch of SC would not change its designation as old school.

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Oct 3, 2011 - 02:48pm PT

Are the postings of the same twenty plus people the community? I climbed with some young punks this summer who are excellent trad climbers and love the older stuff. The ones I climbed with love learning about the histroy and valued how routes were done. I again say that I respect all forms of climbing and hope that there will always be accurate representations of all those forms not just for myself, but for future generations of climbers. All these forms are well represented at all levels in TM, from 5.0 to 5.14? From safe to the so called "death climb". Don't I, and others, have the right to try them all? To experience them as they were originally intended? If I want to have 150' between me and the belayer, isn't that up to me? And if someone is in over there heads, isn't that up to them? Just as we can never feel what the FA's felt the first time they led a line, adding something to that line will change it. You can skip the add on, but you still know it happened. Yes, they are "art,sport,and climb" (paraphrasing) in a community but so were most artist and one can trace that art through the ages by seeing those paintings etc. unchanged. What a beautiful thing it is to see the changes in Picasso over his lifetime. Glad he didn't go back and change his younger stuff because of how he felt later in life.... So I appeal directly to Rick. Please don't change the history of your life! Revel in it! You were young and brash? So were most of us! You've changed as you've aged? So have most of us! Go out and do art which represents who you are know! Put up a climb that represents the change so we can see it and appreciate it..But please don't change your past because your art is beautiful. And I'm responsible for how I interact with it.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Oct 3, 2011 - 02:51pm PT

If I want to have 150' between me and the belayer, isn't that up to me?

Check with the belayer. It's not ok with me.

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Oct 3, 2011 - 03:21pm PT

Most longtime partners know and share the fate....mine does.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Oct 3, 2011 - 04:07pm PT

Then you're all set.

My partners don't want to be 150 ft. out, and they don't want me to put them in that position either.

There's a reason we're all still around 35 years later.

Wormly81

Trad climber

Oct 3, 2011 - 05:28pm PT

I think if everyone put as much thought into how their actions affect others as this FA'ist, then our community as a whole would be better off. Moreover, I think that the force of a community who cares and thinks is the best way to protect our resources, and our access to those resources.

I don't feel like its my place to take a position one way or another on the bolts, but just want to point out theres going to be a bunch of whiners no matter what is done. The people who feel the need to vocalize their opinion the loudest typically have delusions regarding their own importance in this world and the meaningfulness of their experiences.

Bolts or no bolts, people will still go up that route and have some of the most shockingly beautiful experiences sharing an amazing natural environment and the bonds that form between men/women with shared goals, dreams, and aspirations. A history and future of beautiful experiences is what I value most, and I can appreciate that the FA ponders whether his actions have created the most fertile ground for such pursuits.

rectorsquid

climber

Lake Tahoe

Oct 3, 2011 - 05:47pm PT

To experience them as they were originally intended?

Random thoughts:

There is NO way to experience a climb as it was originally "intended" unless you are the FA party or if no one has bolted, chipped, rubbed smooth, or documented the climb in any way on purpose or by accident. Bolts are just a small part of things that alter the experience.

Are retro-bolts any worse than large numbers of trad climbers polishing a route so smooth that it is a few points harder than what the FA experienced? Dang that polishing can make an "easy" routes hard. I guess that since the route is made harder by the community, it's OK. Just don't make it easier?

Dave

Mangy Peasant

Social climber

Riverside, CA

Oct 3, 2011 - 07:22pm PT

I think I'm starting to understand survival's point.

Does seem a bit odd that completing the whole line would mean you would climb with a rope/gear for two pitches and then one person in the party would have to solo the next pitch.

How far above the belay does it become a death fall? If you fell after 20, 40, 60... feet?

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 3, 2011 - 07:25pm PT

i can't see what the big deal about running out a full ptch of 5.7 is. Everyone I new use to solo it on a fairly regular basis. i use to when i was a 5.9 climber. onsight. i wonder if the reason most people are choosing not to do the third pitch is due to some other reason, like to avoid a long hike. where is the sense of adventure? if you wouldn't fall on it with a top rope, why not lead it? climbers are getting to sissified. i won't even use the p word, cuz girls are more apt to step up to the plate these days. if you call yourself a 5.9 climber, you should be able to run out 5.7. the first 40 ft. are'nt runnout. if it's to much for ya, learn to down climb.

You calling Original Stonemaster Rick A a sissy? Cause even he says he wasn't up to leading the 5.7 pitch on his own route which he had obviously even done before so it wasn't even going to be an onsight?

Peace

karl

Bldrjac

Ice climber

Boulder

Oct 3, 2011 - 07:45pm PT

I don't know. I just hate to see so many routes getting "dumbed down" because the level of climbing ability in any one area is dropping off to accommodate the lowest common denominator.
Does EVERY established older route have to be retro-bolted so that EVERY climber has access to it?
What about allowing climbers to improve their ability by having some routes that are well-protected and then some that are completely run out? There are plenty of good, well-protected 5.6-58s in Tuolumne for people to climb before they challenge themselves on more serious run-out routes.
Leave some adventure and inconvenience in climbing so that climbers can grow, improve and have a wider range of climbing experiences/adventures. We don't do anyone any favors by going back and adding placing bolts on routes that have true commitment and grace.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Oct 3, 2011 - 07:46pm PT

i can't see what the big deal about running out a full ptch of 5.7 is.

Because if you bust a knob up at the high end, you could be a dead man. I fail to see how you miss that. You're not just endangering your life, but the life of your belayer.

survival, if you don't wanna be 150 ft. out, simply don't do the climb.

As it stands, I won't.

i use to when i was a 5.9 climber. onsight.

When you were a 5.9 climber? I was a 5.12 climber, and I'll stand my balls next to any 5.9 climber on the planet. That's not the point. It's needlessly putting you and your partner on the line for 5.7.

climbers are getting to sissified. i won't even use the p word,

That's rich, for a 5.9 guy. Are you calling me a sissy or a pussy?

At least Honnold will only take himself out, not a belayer. That's one of the crucial parts of my argument. I've soloed plenty.

Geez, and we had such a civil chat going on here.

Byran

climber

Merced, CA

Oct 3, 2011 - 08:24pm PT

This isn't A6, we're talking about a pitch of 5.7X here. No one is going to rip out that 3 bolt anchor and kill their belayer.

Bldrjac

Ice climber

Boulder

Oct 3, 2011 - 08:34pm PT

I think before placing any bolts for protection and therefore changing the experience of the climb pretty much forever consideration needs to be given to what sort of experience will be lost if the protection changes. Will the climbing community be better off for it or the worse?

WBraun

climber

Oct 3, 2011 - 09:08pm PT

The weirdest thing about this whole affair to me is Rick is such a wicked damn bad ass face climber.

Hell he's a wicked bad ass climber as a whole period.

That 5.7 pitch would be an easy stroll in the mall for him .....

damo62

Social climber

Brisbane

Oct 3, 2011 - 09:10pm PT

Just don't clip the additional bolts, simple.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Oct 3, 2011 - 10:10pm PT

survival- "When you was a 5.9 climber, I was a 5.12 climber."

When you were a 5.9 climber? I was a 5.12 climber, and I'll stand my balls next to any 5.9 climber on the planet.

Dood, if you're going to quote someone, get it right. There is a difference between those quotes, yours is wrong. It's not even hard to get it right. Don't you see that lessens the power of your whole post by blowing a quote?

My whole drift here was to support a sense of the route that RA himself was putting forward.

You want to fancy yourself as a 5.7X climber? Have at it.

I give up anyway. I've said more than my share, HA!
As if I was the pro-bolt spokesman or something...sheesh...

guido

Trad climber

Santa Cruz/New Zealand/South Pacific

Oct 3, 2011 - 10:55pm PT

Shipoopoi, Rick A, Donini, EE, Karl, and Survival seem to be on track for me and I can't see what the big problem is. This is a cast of characters you don't want to get into a pissing contest with. Or, as it appears some of you do? Carter and Werner don't count as they can piss as far as anyone I know. Oh hell, now where was that zipper?

Falling on 5.7? 240 ft leader falls? There are plenty of our mates that have entered this spectrum and I'm sure they would like to add something here, but unfortunately they are no longer with us.

How can one not think of the Classic: " The Toothless Old Tykes Of Tomorrow, Were The Tigers Of Yesterday." No lights flashing, alarm bells silent? Give it some time and enjoy the routes however you approach them and whatever state they are in as you really have little control over the process.

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 3, 2011 - 10:56pm PT

Werner wrote

yeah, he is totally "The Man"

But still, in the OP he wrote

I hadn't been climbing a lot and I didn't intend to do the third pitch this time, but I took a good look at it and longed to go up it. But there is a season for higher risk routes in a climbing career and that season is passed for me. Back safely home, I entertain the idea that with another week of playing the knobs in TM, I could easily manage it.

Why not add a bolt or two to make that third pitch more reasonable, so most people wouldn't have to rap off, right at the start of the most beautiful and unique section of the route? SC is not a test piece like the Bachar Yarian or Southern Belle. No top climber is going to seek it out to demonstrate his or her mastery. Snake Dike and West Country have had bolts added with the consent of the first ascent party (see Eric Beck's and Doug Robinson's comments in the recent "route ownership" thread) and ensured fun memories for many a 5.7 leader.

But, by consenting to adding bolts, I would be working against what makes the TM experience rewarding and rare. TM has an ethic of preserving the risk in climbing and I woudn't want to contribute to erosion of it. It is a testament to that ethic that no one has added a bolt to this pitch for 37 years.

But on the other hand, adding a bolt or two would allow cautious (timid?) climbers, including my present self, the opportunity to access some great climbing without undue risk.

I'm sure if he had ventured up there, he would have been fine, but begs the question whether 5.7 is a grade that really needs death pitches or if some compromise for lesser climbers while remaining spicy is in order. 5.10+ climbers might be expected to develop the skills and consistency to virtually solo some things, but I'm not so sure that's reasonable to expect from folks doing 5.9 cracks and 5.7 face

eeyonkee

Trad climber

Golden, CO

Oct 3, 2011 - 11:52pm PT

Rick's such a such a great guy...I'm mean really.

WBraun

climber

Oct 4, 2011 - 12:16am PT

This doesn't make any sense, thaDood.

Are we ultimately responsible?

I asked Kauk why he didn't place a bolt on the face moves on freestone.

He said he was just climbing and didn't feel he needed one.

Some good climbers backed off that lead and bailed.

The anchors sucked too.

Guys age ... and then become conservative because they lost their edge.

That means you're not the same person anymore.

That person died.

Thoughts ...... ?

Mike Bolte

Trad climber

Planet Earth

Oct 4, 2011 - 12:23am PT

Guys age ... and then become conservative because the lost they their edge.

That means the you're not the same person anymore.

That person died.

yowch! that hurt.

G_Gnome

Trad climber

In the mountains... somewhere...

Oct 4, 2011 - 12:46am PT

The truth always hurts!

Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber

I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!

Oct 4, 2011 - 12:47am PT

cosmic has the super chicken

Guck

Trad climber

Santa Barbara, CA

Oct 4, 2011 - 12:56am PT

Wisdom is the ability to see the way things are.

Werner is indeed a very wise man!

We are old Farts, basking in our past glory, but still old Farts.

bhilden

Trad climber

Mountain View, CA

Oct 4, 2011 - 01:02am PT

What I think most people are missing in this particular case is that if you read what Rick and his partner wrote, the reason Rick didn't place any bolts was that he was impatient to get off the climb. Heck, he didn't even have an anchor at the top of the third pitch because he didn't want to take the time to place the bolts.

Not placing bolts because you are impatient is way different than not placing bolts because it is a difficult lead as on Bachar-Yerian.

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 4, 2011 - 01:54am PT

He is the one that stated one must have certain abilities "walk the walk" if they are going to take part it this discussion.

I'd support anyone's right to take part in the discussion. I was suggesting that it would carry more weight for those with the particular attitude that death pitches should be preserved for the joy of those bold ones who will want to come along in the future and challenge themselves on such a pitch if they actually had done so themselves. Because I think sometimes folks think it but never get to it when they are actually capable. These days people have other goals when they get good,

Because I'm just not seeing it these days. Back in the day, sure, People still climbed slabs popularly and doing the bold runout slab climbs was a thing. No more. The slabs sit pretty empty and the good climbers are going for hard, or speed, or Solo.

Who are the ones doing the runout slabs then? I used to be one of them to a more modest degree. It's guys with partners, usually girlfriends, that can't quite climb as hard or strenuous. If you take a partner up a R rated slab climb below your ability, you get an uncrowded climb and still get some thrills, and they can still manage to pull the moves.

I'm not sure just how this crowd is so precious that we need to put everyone else in the backseat because of it, because there's always stuff for them to do. I'm not too passionate about my case here. I'm kinda ready to flow with whatever the community feels, but I've climbed with the moderate climbers (which I am myself mostly and particularly since I broke my arm and got old) and sympathize with the situation in TM (Tons of classic moderates that moderate climbers can't touch and big lines on safer classics)

Somehow this story comes to mind: I'm taking an old girlfriend at the time up from Lucifer's ledge to the Oasis. One 5.9 Pitch has zero pro and she's belaying from some rusty 1/4 inchers. I can't see any bolts or worn lichen and the topo has no landmark features. I climb up 60 or 80 feet, and finally see the anchors, much further left than I expected. I had to downclimb some pretty thin stuff that wasn't as clean as I would have liked and for a long ways to get back to where I could head back up to the anchor, which was one fixed bong. Don't know what would have happened if I fell. I know there's some kinda twisted glory in mank but if the community decides someday that they'd rather have a spicy but not deadly 5.9 instead of that Dinosaur, I'd be the first to applaud.

Ironically, I forgot how epic that Lucifers to Oasis was and went back and rope/Free soloed it some years later. I wound up spending the night in a T shirt on the Oasis. For those who want the whole story, check out

http://www.yosemiteclimber.com/LucifersLedgeSolo.html

Peace

Karl

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 4, 2011 - 02:02am PT

Werner writes

Guys age ... and then become conservative because they lost their edge.

That means you're not the same person anymore.

That person died.

Thoughts ...... ?

I think the whole thing swings both ways hard. It's common enough when you're young to act immortal and risk your life to show off or save a few buck on bolts, or maybe it's to "test yourself" You might also bang lots of hotties and wind up breaking hearts cause you don't care for their feelings or life as much as your own nut, and perhaps some babies are even born out of that.

The older guy has been through enough, and maybe seen some buddies hit the deck enough to have different priorities and care for more than himself and his glory. Or maybe he gets chicken or wants to run it out but the wife and kids say hold on!

In any case, did that person die? Perhaps the bold pirate dude was a concoction of the ego in the first place. Werner knows that we are eternally the Soul awareness and that the forms and manifestations of our personality are always dying and changing but that's not really us. The Old "Us" usually has as many faults and shortcomings (or more) than the less edgy "new Old" us

We make this climbing game and take it seriously and stake our image on it. How we treat and regard ourselves and our fellow climbers shows our colors. It may be noble to preserve the old boldness, or it may be selfish. It's hard to judge but it's not all about one thing like balls, because there's more to our sport than competition, even within ourselves. Our fellow climbers count too, and the welfare of the many and the minority. No easy answers.

peace

Karl

LongAgo

Trad climber

Oct 4, 2011 - 03:03am PT

What is most important here is your putting the question up for consideration because by so doing:

(1)You are underscoring the FA party has the claim on if/when to add fixed protection, a point of view not always followed, as with one of my FAs, Hair-raiser Buttress, for one.

(2) You as one of the FA party are weighing the pros and cons and retaining the authority to make the decision one way or another based on all the important considerations:

- Respecting and understanding and savoring how it was first done. As Cragman says, “one of the privileges of climbing there is to know the history, and be able to pass over the same stone that the giants of our sport had done,” and as Guido says,”First ascents are works of art. Some superb, others worthless, a given in the eyes of the creator and an option for later ascents.” Indeed, and contrary to the line of thought by Stezzo: “Essentially, it's nearly impossible for climbers to experience a route as the FA experienced it.” Not true. By reading and talking and interacting with those who came before, one can enrich the experience of climbing by reflecting on how crazy or stupid or brilliant where the FA party (sometimes all at once, turns out), all very much a part of the climbing experience. Of course, one never has the SAME experience of the FA party. We are separate beings. We never have anyone else’s experience, but that’s hardly the point. The point is to appreciate to the degree possible and satisfying to you the experience and time of the FA assent, and more generally the ascents of the day. Such simply adds to the joy of climbing, I contend, and to take no effort to know the history diminishes ones experience and joy of climbing.

- The tradition in Tuolumne of minimizing bolts for noble and ignoble reasons, including the concern for how bolts mar if not deface the rock, or the attempt to boost one’s reputation as a hard climber and try to gain another notch in the competitive game of the day. But even in the latter case (there are many), the crazy and ignoble still needs to be left to the FA party to change, if they choose, and only them. So, Rectorsquid, your thought “Nobody's going to follow the climbing ethics of a lunatic,” may be generally right, except for the next lunatic. And no matter what, it is the FA lunatic who gets to decide whether to come back and make things sane or not, not because he/she “owns” the route, but because we respect their freedom and right to go up into new territory and make their way as a most prized pleasure and fulfillment in climbing, one we want for them as we do ourselves.

- The actual risk to life and limb of the third pitch should one fall for any reason. Survival puts it well, “We're talking about tradition yes, and spice too, but don't forget there's life and death involved.” Indeed, how would you feel day in and day out (and nighttime too) if a perfectly capable climber broke a knob and bought it or sustained major injury on the pitch? I can’t recall the fall potential on the last pitch, but near the end I guess it would be pretty wild going over an arête, but not death. Am I right?

- The rising volume of “safe” sport routes where moderate grades are protected and provide the experience some climbers prefer, plus the fact one can rap off easily after the second pitch of the climb and it seems as if it is accepted practice.

- The precedent setting potential of adding pro to established routes, though much discussion seems to miss a key point: you are keeping alive the important precedent of how it is up to FA party to be consulted on the matter, quite contrary to the worry expressed here you are opening the door to retro bolting without consultation.

- The potential increased traffic and delay should the alteration be made, though again, if people now simply rap and don’t do the last pitch (much like Golden Bars, where it seems people often rap and avoid the long, beautiful but unprotected 5.8 finale getting you to another short pitch to the top of the dome and views galore), then it seems the extra traffic probably would be minimal.

- All the above against the gain for climbers to climb pitch three, completing the whole route and feeling safer in the process about doing this particular route.

Note how all the pondering you get to do in consideration of the discussion here goes contrary to another line of thinking as one poster puts it: “If it were a popular pitch, then the community would have more claim to ownership.” Nope, as most discussion on the thread shows, it is the FA party who gets to decide on adding bolts, not the “community” by the level of popularity of the pitch/route.

So to me, strange to say, I care not what decision you make. The final answer to your pondering is far less important than the fact you are doing the asking and others are waiting for the answer, as opposed to someone deciding (or some “community”) they will retro bolt it. However, “to freedom condemned,” as Sartre says. Now that you have raised the question about what to do, you must go through the existential angst and eventually give us your answer!

For my two cents, I liked the whole route (second and third better than first pitch, which is OK if you stay to the left crack) just as it was. I do recall pitch anchors when I did it, and got to say I favor anchors in ALL cases! So, I wouldn’t do anything to it but add anchors if needed. But that’s just another n of 1. As I say, what’s more important is you and your teammate are deciding and we await a reasoned reply. Final point: I bet the “community” will respect your decision after all this machination, still another important point if not the most important.

Tom HIggins
LongAgo

bergbryce

Mountain climber

South Lake Tahoe, CA

Oct 4, 2011 - 03:04am PT

Karl, sweet story!!

I was talking to a guy about this story today while we were walking to a crag. He's been climbing for decades and he really summed this situation up quite well when he said... "but in the end, it's only rock climbing".

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 4, 2011 - 04:37am PT

Tom, in a well considered post writes

Note how all the pondering you get to do in consideration of the discussion here goes contrary to another line of thinking as one poster puts it: “If it were a popular pitch, then the community would have more claim to ownership.” Nope, as most discussion on the thread shows, it is the FA party who gets to decide on adding bolts, not the “community” by the level of popularity of the pitch/route.

This is now the case and I'm cool with it. It will likely not be the case 75 years from now when most FA parties are fading memories and no longer accessible. That's why at one point I advocated a "First ascenders" registry where FA parties could tell the story of their route and their feelings about ethics and the area involved. That way the tradition of an area could be better preserved and articulated into the future and we'd have a better sense which routes were intended to be bold and which were just put up by folks in a hurry with no bolt money.

Peace

Karl

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Oct 4, 2011 - 09:54am PT

ok, one more post from me for dood.

that you were claiming to be a 5.12 climber in 1971 remarkable since not even the Stonemasters were 5.12 climbers then

Holy buckets man, talk about a stretch. Never, in either one of our original exchanges was 1971 mentioned, ever. How did you pull that out of your ass?

What you said was that you were soloing or running out 5.7 when you were a 5.9 climber. I wrongly assumed that was as far as you took your leading.

I never claimed to be climbing 5.12 at the same moment you were a 5.9 climber. That's why your quote was so far off base. What I meant was that I was a 5.12 climber, and quite competent at running it out if necessary, but that I don't want myself or my partner out 150 feet on 5.7 ground.

I don't need a 5.9 climber telling me what to think about a full pitch runout, or what is sissified. That's what I meant, and how wrong we can be with written communication.

Sorry for the miscommunication.

August West

Trad climber

Where the wind blows strange

Oct 4, 2011 - 11:50am PT

I again say that I respect all forms of climbing and hope that there will always be accurate representations of all those forms not just for myself, but for future generations of climbers. All these forms are well represented at all levels in TM, from 5.0 to 5.14? From safe to the so called "death climb". Don't I, and others, have the right to try them all? To experience them as they were originally intended?

So that means you are gonna nail your way up Serenity, climb on a goldline without cams, and in EB shoes (or, gulp, lug boots)?

Be real. Things aren't static. And people poo-bah those who say you don't have to clip bolts, but you don't. If a bunch of bolts were added to the BY, a climber could skip them. The only real difference is that when they spray about having lead the route, nobody will know how bad-ass they were.

cheers

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Oct 4, 2011 - 12:38pm PT

Right on Tom Higgins! End of discussion for me. FA has the say. And "cheers" to you August West for pointing out the obvious. But I still get to care......

Tony

Studly

Trad climber

Oct 4, 2011 - 12:38pm PT

Lets put out egos in our back pocket, let Rick put some bolts in, and then go do the route in its entirety. Enough already. Get er done Rick! Some things (and climbs) are just supposed to be about having fun.

G_Gnome

Trad climber

In the mountains... somewhere...

Oct 4, 2011 - 01:21pm PT

Quote "Some things (and climbs) are just supposed to be about having fun.".

But not everything should be just about having fun. Sometimes it should be about self control and testing how high one can fly. There are millions of routes to 'have fun on' but there aren't very many to 'test yourself on'. Leave the few that are there alone.

Studly

Trad climber

Oct 4, 2011 - 02:04pm PT

Its 5.7. In the time tested manner, solo it if you want to test yourself.

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Oct 4, 2011 - 02:06pm PT

Right on G-Gnome....missed you this summer. Let's all meet up and climb SC when TM opens next year before anything happens to it. It was on the list for last summer but we got on other stuff. Never occurred to us NOT to do the third pitch. Always thought it was part of the climb.....
Tony

shipoopoi

Big Wall climber

oakland

Oct 4, 2011 - 02:22pm PT

hey jack, how's it going?i think one thing that we are learning on this thread is that

IT IS UP TO THE FIRST ASCENT PARTY TO DECIDE IF A ROUTE SHOULD BE RETROBOLTED

so, when i think about it, Get Into The Groove(11a) is the ONLY route i ever retrobolted, and that is out of 60 or 70 FA's i did in TM. Here on this thread, rick is talking about retrobolting a single route. You see, if only the FAist have license to retrobolt, and since we are all getting older and will be deadish in 30 more years, the history and runouts of tuolumne will be well preserved.

and G_gnome, your point about preserving the third pitch of SC in its original state because it is a valuable source has merit, but when i think of all the runout 5.7 territory in tuolumne that is still out there...i mean, like there is soooo much of that that if a couple of routes get retrobolted, the resource is still there, there will always be more than plenty of runout 5.7 territory to test your mettle on.

i mean, does anybody think all the FAist that ran it out in the 60's to 80's are going to flock back to TM and start retrobolting everything they did 30 years ago? no, it's just not going to happen.

so, in conclusion, we are not going down a slippery slope here, the old, bold routes in TM are here to stay. shipoopoi

Bldrjac

Ice climber

Boulder

Oct 4, 2011 - 02:57pm PT

Steve, I'm well, thanks. Life is good....

I agree with Shipoopoi and others that the FA party has the final word. I'm still not convinced that it is in the best interests of the climbing community to add bolts. Mainly because I've seen that sort of action spread to other routes, and usually for the worse. But I believe that Rick A has the right to do that and will do "the right thing"... Of all of us he can probably make the best decision ........HA! does that make him an ELDER STATESMAN like Largo?

BTW, I'm going to the Needles next week. What was the final outcome of Super Pin?

LongAgo

Trad climber

Oct 4, 2011 - 08:04pm PT

On a FA Registry

Karl writes:

"This is now the case and I'm cool with it. It will likely not be the case 75 years from now when most FA parties are fading memories and no longer accessible. That's why at one point I advocated a "First ascenders" registry where FA parties could tell the story of their route and their feelings about ethics and the area involved. That way the tradition of an area could be better preserved and articulated into the future and we'd have a better sense which routes were intended to be bold and which were just put up by folks in a hurry with no bolt money."

I like your idea of a FA registry and would appreciate any link you have where you fleshed out your thinking. Such a registry would serve both to give us more insightful history I often suggest can enrich our climbing experience, and force FA parties to face themselves on their motives both admirable and suspect, provided they write honestly (as tough and rewarding a challenge as climbing itself, turns out).

Such a registry, as with good journal articles, would open the door a bit more on an important issue, for one: there is much presumption the old guard (guess I'm there, like it or not) minimized bolting in TM for noble reasons, but in truth, the reasons were as varied as the human heart taking on any endeavor (and what else would we expect?). So, speaking for myself and I think for Bob Kamps but he's gone now, yes, we tried to wring out every bit of natural pro possible, minimize what looked like a blotch on the pristine landscape (to us), but equally got tired standing on 5.8 and 5.9 drilling, were in angst over the setting sun, broke one too many drill bits (found you could drill with a broken bit, but not too well), or just felt immortal and glued to the rock some days. We did try to think of those who were to follow, but sometimes may have missed the good pro to difficulty balance with the mishmash of motives i cite. There's the truth as I understand it.

We also should not deny the amount of protection was in play in TM as a point of competition, and some felt they could gain more reputation by reducing or eliminating protection. It's no news but still needs stating out loud: climbers, especially when young, understand kudos go not simply with the level of difficulty achieved but if and how one protects. In fact, to this day, we give high praises to solo climbers using no protection, though frankly, I think such praises may need rethinking (another and different thread much needed, if approached honestly by all, especially in the aftermath of Bachar's death).

You also raise an excellent point about how long we can expect some bolted routes to stand as is given the passage of time, the fragility of written history, changes in community beliefs and perspectives, and especially once the FA parties are gone and beyond asking about any modifications. I have praised RickA for asking the community about the last pitch modification, but there are many cases where the FA party is alive but silent or disinterested (as my partner Vern Clevenger seemed to be on the long threads on adding bolts to Hair Raiser Buttress, though I did consult him, and he too agreed to leave it alone as I requested, a wish not respected in this case). I've come to see we must rely solely on engagement such as via these threads, persuasion, reasoned discussion and argument in any written form reaching climbers, and the occasional loose and ad hoc climbing organizations (such as the Friends of Pinnacles which tries to keep up certain style agreements among climbers via a website and community building events such as clean ups and keeping credibility by representing climbing interests to the Park Service). Climbing – unless officially regulated as in Eldorado Canyon - is not a rule bound activity, thank God, with monitoring and enforcement and oversight whether on bolting or where/if to climb in one style or another and nor should it be.

So, off we go into the sunset, our words, wishes, thoughts, pleads, reasoning and writings blowing in the wind, little squeakers who the next generation (or some of this one) may or may not hear or care to hear. But squeak we will until we find, contrary to the soaring feelings on some sunny days climbing along on lovely Tuolumne knobs, we are not immortal. Indeed those to come may entirely remake Tuolumne climbing, and all of climbing and smile and shake their heads at some old FA registry, journal article, thread, website with funny tiny pictures and ramblings like mine and think, "So that's what it once was about." So it must be.

Tom Higgins
LongAgo

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 4, 2011 - 09:59pm PT

Hi Tom

Here are links to two short threads regarding the potential First Ascender Registry. I don't have the energy/interest/time to get it going but it could be a sweet project from somebody or group as they would have an excuse to contact and hobknob with most of the remaining pioneers of the sport of different eras

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=20192

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=20494

I didn't think anybody, including me, was going to pick up the ideas so I started a first ascent party thread there

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=391916

But being an on-topic thread, it sank down and away to where threads go to die

Peace

Karl

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Oct 6, 2011 - 04:48pm PT

We already know the rule: it is the first ascensionists’ prerogative to change the route. But … given that Rick asked, we get lots of opinions, broach the subject in a very broad way, reflect upon the past, open our minds to the future, ... and Rick also quite smartly reduces blowback in the event that a change to the route occurs.

The fact that Ricky asked: this has helped to set the tone for a very meaningful discussion. There is another reason this discussion has been so civil and productive; it is because, in my opinion, we pretty much all agree in the inestimable value provided by doing these kinds of run out routes and we cherish their history!

Do guys get old and go soft, becoming a little too amenable to retrofitting scary things with bolts? They certainly do and so do some gals! Although I would be wary of this factor, I’m going to suggest there is something else at play here which may indicate a greater service to the Tuolumne ethic, tradition, and collection of routes. Regarding the slippery slope: I’m suggesting that retrofitting this route with say, two bolts, might in fact stave the urge in climbers of the future to make too many changes to our route catalog up there in the domes.

Think back to the time when these things were done. The community was small and the rich oral history then at play was the crucial link to one’s understanding and targeting of those ladders in the sky. You could get a sense of what a route proposed in terms of risk and reward, a very good sense of it mostly through talking to your cohorts and they could help you build towards that goal with alternative route selection.

Fast-forward 30 years from now and all that is completely gone. No one will know firsthand what so-and-so’s climbing style was like and what to expect from one of their efforts. All one will then have is guidebooks and an evolving oral history that is much different from the one that served us in that compact and focused era. There will be more diversity of style for the climber of the future, with an emphasis on sport climbing and effectively no link to those heady aromas and the singular game that encompassed them.

It may well be that the best way to preserve the test-piece adventure routes and the whole feel of the place in general, is indeed to encourage future generations to participate… and to accomplish this we may need to build a better ramp, a ladder if you will, with fewer gaps between rungs, that will serve in the absence of that immediately accessible oral history and a simpler time when this style of climbing was the norm and in fact the only game in town.

This may mean identifying routes that are somewhat out of balance and sacrificing their original state to serve the purpose of laying out a more graduated ensemble of climbs that point the way, that will prepare and lead tomorrow’s aspirant to the heady test piece. It’s not as though this isn’t already in place, but it could probably be made a little better in terms of the spread between very safe routes on one side and quite risky routes on the other end of the spectrum.

To me, composing a full pitch 5.7 run out on top of a 5.9 crack represents less balance than putting it on top of a 5.10+. That’s what makes this route a candidate for retrofitting in my mind, as opposed to changing something like Piece of Grass. I’m not buying that a 5.9 climber is ready to on-site solo, dragging a rope, a 5.7 slab. Soloing 5.7 rehearsed, yes, this is more likely for the 5.9 climber. I see the 5.7 full pitch run out much more suited to the 5.10 or 5.11 lead climber, so in my mind Super Chicken is somewhat botched.

It’s fairly natural that the 5.11 lead climber occasionally ignored easy sections of rock and created something out of balance like this 5.9 followed by that full pitch run out. A 5.11 climber of Ricky's caliber would just run over the 5.7 slab, especially in their prime. I doubt that would ever have been so for the 5.9 climber of the past and I would imagine it even less likely behavior for the 5.9 climber of the future.

So perhaps we fix a few routes that were never quite right in the first place in order to smooth out the continuum, to create a map, a physical map that relies on no oral history, to point the way to what we find so valuable and to what we hope others will find valuable as well. After all is that not why we care so much to begin with? It’s not just that we enjoyed the heady test piece and want it preserved as a testament, more so, it’s that we understand it has intrinsic value due to its connection to self-reliance and the extension to the mountains and a more raw overall experience, fortifying as it does the soul and more importantly producing safer climbers in as much as their abilities to judge unprotected ground very much helps them hone their own self-knowledge, ultimately effecting their safety more than bolts.

I’m not particularly passionate either way about this route, I have not climbed it, I could be wrong, and I’m fine with the way things are now in Tuolumne, but some adjustments, rather than eroding our legacy, may in fact help to preserve it. You’ll notice more and more high-quality guidebooks also include some very good histories and this would be a component of that plan.

Essentially, if you want people to care, you have to leave a path for them to follow, leave some signposts that point the way and avail them of a route selection which helps and encourages them to generate the skills to experience that hallowed ground all on their own.

There ... 'said the same thing 5 times in 1 post, so I don't have to post 5 times saying the same single thing!

Cheers all,
Roy

tom Carter

Social climber

Oct 6, 2011 - 04:58pm PT

Just what I would expect for you Roy....Good ideas spiced with insight, experience and humor!!!!

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Oct 6, 2011 - 05:34pm PT

And yes, if we commit ourselves to the unthinkable and soil this dove with a couple of bolts, they should be as CragMann suggested, of the quarter-inch rusty spinner variety and absolutely nothing else will do in their stead.

… or they should at least look like them.
Think about it: the RustySpinner™ ... a soul stirring, tummy wrenching, come-hither beacon from the past... which is actualy a full strength look-alike.
(see Grossman’s PinBolt for examples of the genre)...

LongAgo

Trad climber

Oct 6, 2011 - 09:01pm PT

Karl,

I'm looking at the links you noted to see the discussion. As I say, I like the idea of a registry and probably cyberspace is the place for it, under what auspicious I don't know. We do get the American Alpine Club Journal climb reports and of course magazines and website tales of ascents, but what appeals to me about a registry (presuming it attracts use) is it might have a template explicitly asking about protection and climbing quality and style of ascent, as well as if and how the route connects (or not) to emerging and past history of the area, or compares to like routes. That way one might actually get FA parties thinking on such matters and reveal some information on the topics at hand. Let me ponder and go to one of your threads with any other thinking.

Tar,

Yes, ideally an area has climbs of varying difficulty and protection level to suit a host of preferences, and has climbs each with its own balance, though of course Fas can’t always have such balance. I mentioned Golden Bars last pitch as an unprotected 5.8 on top of some pretty stiff 5.11 which, as you say, makes more sense as a combination of pitches than 5.9 with a 5.7X last pitch, just because of the probable ability of the climbers facing those last pitches having done the first pith or pitches. More generally, seems to me Tuolumne has a pretty wide range of climbs by technical difficulty and protection style, providing overall "balance,” though there is much on the run side.

In line with some of the thinking on this thread, we might also revisit the role of the area guidebook. Guidebooks might do better than list topos, give route stars, index FA attribution and provide a few pages of history from early through latest achievements, the typical approach. In line with Karl's thinking, perhpas guidebooks could include some words from a range of leading FA parties over time as to their perceptions and intentions. Guidebooks also could suggest groups of climbs varying by difficulty and degree of protection, and perhaps recommend some progression from modest group to more challenging once a climber feels comfortable moving on. Of course, if an area does develop a registry of the sort Karl is suggesting, the guidebook also could highlight the registry for further information.

Tom Higgins
LongAgo

goatboy smellz

climber

Nederland

Oct 6, 2011 - 09:11pm PT

What a bunch of bureaucrats.

Bldrjac

Ice climber

Boulder

Oct 6, 2011 - 09:20pm PT

This is getting WAYYYY too complicated. I think I am going to go climbing....

WBraun

climber

Oct 6, 2011 - 09:25pm PT

This is what happens when guys get old.

They over think and analyze too much.

A young guy would have smacked the bolts in a long time ago and let the rest weep ......

hooblie

climber

from where the anecdotes roam

Oct 7, 2011 - 07:14am PT

man, the junk we have to wade through searching out grist for the mill like that
posted by roy and tom et al.. and then when it appears, all i can express
is copious respect, and the wish that we could stay up here forever.

thanks you guys. i shan't pretend to be able to engage,
but you've sure got me doing the best kind of grinding

edit: second best

Guck

Trad climber

Santa Barbara, CA

Oct 7, 2011 - 01:32pm PT

Slowly but surely, the old trad climbers die off or pick up golfing instead. The new breed of gym climbers is taking over, with their expectation of a "safe" bolted route, which requires technical ability, and no head.

The head component is what differentiates trad climbing from the rest, and unfortunately, trad climbing is slowly dying. RIP!

WBraun

climber

Oct 7, 2011 - 01:47pm PT

... unfortunately, trad climbing is slowly dying.

Probably .... ?

Then you'll have 2 camps?

The guys with no heads and the "crazy" free soloists.

LOL, which camp will one join ..... :-)

Bldrjac

Ice climber

Boulder

Oct 7, 2011 - 03:38pm PT

A compromise might be to place two 1/4 bolts and paint them so well that they blend in with the rock really well and are difficult to locate.............

RIcky, the suspense is killin' me. Whatcha gonna do?

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Oct 7, 2011 - 05:11pm PT

Hooblie!

So you like and even perhaps want a little more grist?
I see a completely independent opportunity in this whole thing.
Dig the concept of: the Second First Ascent.

So, we get this First Ascentionists’ Registry (FAR) rolling and out of that, among other things, we get the go-ahead to reshape the route catalogue a little bit, just enough so to smooth out the opportunity for those sport-wuss climbers of the future, (no doubt spiffed out with zoom packs and ray guns, but shy on the cajones), a clear path to pick up some old dad trad skills and likewise disinterest them in retro bolting all of our treasures.

With that in place, someone then “gets” to do some very limited amount of retro bolting. This is where the second opportunity opens; the operative here is “limited”, in this case better characterized by the term “scarcity”. You see, there’s all this talk of the one-time experience of the FA. One thing that makes the FA unique is the fact that the climber is roaming about on (mostly) blank rock with a bolt kit on hip and at-the-ready if need be.

Now, we all know that having that damn bolt kit handy while pushing out into the ethers is quite comforting and even empowering. So much so that the second ascentionista can actually be in, or certainly feel to be in, more peril than the first! This for a variety of reasons, the primary being lack of choice as to when and where to drill, and among others the experience of sadly missing the bolt altogether.

Enter the retro bolter. The person in these boots is now presented with what you might call an ersatz FA opportunity, or more accurately, the closest possible recreation of one (other than the situation wherein a previously unbolted and unreported line had unwittingly been bolted by a presumed FA dude). So given that the wishes of those as recorded in the FAR are most likely to limit this activity because they just don’t want their routes changed, we now have a scarcity of this opportunity which makes it potentially valuable.

At the same time, we’ve got a lot of crusty old dads now experiencing several conditions: the first being that some of them are getting wuss-ified and wouldn’t mind a tiny bit of retro bolt activity, the second being that some of them would still probably like to experience the taste and feel of a real FA, or something similar albeit watered-down, both which could also be typified as a scarcity. The third and crucial piece is that a growing chunk of that group, much like myself, are totally sacked out physically, financially, and no doubt emotionally ... and suffering from intractable or financially vertiginous health problems.

So you put all that together and what you have is an opportunity to raffle off the reenactment, to include retro bolting, of a couple of these old lines: with proceeds allocated towards the sacked out group who need that new hip, ankle, Mojo or whatever!

Example: we sell raffle tickets at say $200 a pop for those who want a chance to sail off into the not-quite-unknown and somewhat perilous territory on that third pitch of Super Chicken and do it up right. If we get 10 people involved this is $2000 in the kitty toward some broken down climber. A win-win on several fronts: on the putative front of staving the slippery slope, on the creative front of the SecondFirstAscent™ (SFA), and on the very real front of helping out some broken down climbers who right now stare into the bald face of an increasingly elusive health-care system.

There you have it!!!

SecondFirstAscent™

Respect the past.

Make a gift to the future.

Experience a rarity.

Help out a brother.

Thank you for your time.

goatboy smellz

climber

Nederland

Oct 7, 2011 - 05:59pm PT

The head component is what differentiates trad climbing from the rest, and unfortunately, trad climbing is slowly dying. RIP!

Free climbing is alive and doing quite well. If you're really concerned about the future of ethics take a noob out and show them how it's done. That act alone will have far more impact than whining online.

G_Gnome

Trad climber

In the mountains... somewhere...

Oct 7, 2011 - 06:25pm PT

Roy, there should be an extra fee PER bolt placed. Or we award additional raffel winners, one for each bolt. Of course this could lead to someone only placing one bolt because they are a cheap bast@rd.

The other option would be to just send everyone up on every runout route wearing a bolt kit. Then if/when they break down and use it it costs them a thousand bucks or so.

Spider Savage

Mountain climber

The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles

Oct 7, 2011 - 11:28pm PT

What if climbers had to register with a government agency for a "bolting license" like a hunting license?

That if there was a "bolt limit" like a bag limit in fishing or hunting?

What if you had to get a "bolt tag" like a deer tag or for other big game, to add a bolt to an exisiting route?

Mungeclimber

Trad climber

sorry, just posting out loud.

Oct 7, 2011 - 11:32pm PT

roger that last point goatboy

mike m

Trad climber

black hills

Oct 7, 2011 - 11:35pm PT

So if the FA says a bolt should be placed every eight feet it is cool right because he did the first ascent. Yeah like 10 to 12 bolts of the pitch.

Guck

Trad climber

Santa Barbara, CA

Oct 8, 2011 - 12:29am PT

Goatboy, I stopped soloeing in the mid sixties, and that is probably why I am still alive. Nevertheless, I am certainly not alone thinking that the new breed of climbers are lacking the head to to the climbs put up years ago. That is why the bolting issue came up. If SC was still unclimbed today, would the FA party use bolts on the third pitch? You bet! and that proves my point.

survival

Big Wall climber

A Token of My Extreme

Oct 8, 2011 - 03:34am PT

If SC was still unclimbed today, would the FA party use bolts on the third pitch? You bet! and that proves my point.

Not knowable, so it can't prove your point.....

Bldrjac

Ice climber

Boulder

Oct 8, 2011 - 08:45am PT

I like to chew on my grist early in the morning..........

So are those removable bolts still being produced? Holes could be drilled for bolts but it would be optional to place the bolts in the holes.............

Roy, I think your idea has merit. I like the idea of the $200 fee with the money going to the broken down climbers ranch.,

Respect the past
Contribute to the future
Experience the moment
Help out a brother.......

Eric Beck

Sport climber

Bishop, California

Oct 8, 2011 - 11:05am PT

Removable bolts may have a place, but Tuolumne isn't it. Even real bolts are hard to spot in the sea of knobs which is TM.

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Oct 8, 2011 - 11:19am PT

Thank you Jack.

Keep in mind, I was asked directly by Ricky to think about this before the thread was started and I understood I would have to search out in my mind all the implications. In situations like this I’m just not given to single answers; at least not without some qualification. (My single answer though, is two bolts, so that the leader is still very much in a concerned and focused state of mind, in keeping with the theme of the locale).

So when I look at these implications, I free associate a bit to get there, add a grain of salt and leaven it with a bit of humor because those implications may not lead to the most practical scenarios.

Obviously I’m kidding about the fake quarter inch rusty spinners.

Tom Higgins did a nice job carrying the guidebook scenario a bit further in the direction I envisioned it, namely to include a head-graded list of routes to help the climber of the future move toward the more serious climbs.

Goat Boy makes exactly the right point about linking from the present to the future, by passing the skills forward now. Likewise, I don’t believe traditional climbing is dead by any means; it’s just that proportionally we all know there are changes. We can lead a horse to water but we can’t make him drink! A little bit of effort at structuring a path and helping out with it, then obviously we let go and what happens happens.

Is it truly practical to have a group of people engage in a contributory raffle so that one of them can lead up and install the bolts? Not if they don’t put the bolts where Ricky intended. He may have to preview it and mark his intentions, or just let things play out naturally. These are just thoughts and not staunch propositions.

Jan took that idea even a little bit further when he suggested each bolt be subject to an individual raffle, expanding the potential pot quite a lot. I’m not convinced he was entirely serious, as I may not be, but it would make a better fundraiser.

So here’s how that would work: if you look at the handful of folks right here on the forum who have voted yes for retro bolting, we might hope that they would be candidates for the raffle. So 10 people might have the option to kick in $200 for each bolt. That would then expand the kitty to $4000. This would likely mean that one person would go up and place the first bolt, and then another would complete the route, because it’s unlikely one person would win both raffles. Alternatively we can envision/structure this fundraiser not as a raffle but have people bid for each bolt, or for the whole pitch in an auction: now that might be really fun and even more productive.

In this I’m not kidding: I am looking at the practical matter. Let me make it a bit more real. Let’s say Survival, whom I know to be a good guy, is sincerely committed to the idea of the additional bolts and puts a little bit of skin in the game in terms of cash, along with some other folk. And we nominate someone like Bullwinkle or Tom Gilge as the recipient.

Thanks again for listening and thank you all for your contributions.
I have read all of the posts and find them quite good.

Guck

Trad climber

Santa Barbara, CA

Oct 8, 2011 - 11:41am PT

Tar, Survival is not a good bet to enter the raffle as he might want to do the second FA without additional bolts.

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Oct 8, 2011 - 01:22pm PT

Yes of course and good point; I am not nominating him either.
Just offering an example, as he has an excellent trad background but would like to see the route made a tad less risky.

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Oct 8, 2011 - 01:33pm PT

And Guck,

The point you make illustrates how wacky these things can get! For instance, not just anybody off the bench willing to put some money toward a benefit and gain a chance to do the retro bolting would necessarily be suited to it now would they?

Then you get into the time-honored concept of the “qualified leader”, a term which we used to deploy quite regularly. Haha.

What a bunch of bureaucrats, as GBoy said earlier.

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Oct 8, 2011 - 06:41pm PT

We are absolutely getting ahead of ourselves, not that I mind you bringing it up. So I should probably underscore the point that these are lighthearted musings, (not plans underway), musings ... ideas based on the future interest in run outs or on the irony of the second first ascent.

LongAgo

Trad climber

Oct 8, 2011 - 10:36pm PT

Karl,

Did read all the threads you noted on the registry idea. Guess it died even though it sounded like it might go on rockclimbing site. What happened? Probably we are getting off thread here, so see if you want to go to one of your threads to continue. But there are obvious tensions there between a registry to:

hear what was done, how and with what thinking, hardly controversial seems to me, and only adding to history for those who care

make decisions about retrobolting, in both near and long term. Looks like you angled the registry toward 1 and away from 2 at rockclimbing site and even at that it didn't fly. Right?

Keeping to this thread topic (I'm sympathetic to those thinking the thread is straying and getting a bit "big"), do we have a decision yet from RickA?

longago

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Oct 9, 2011 - 09:56am PT

Mr. Higgins, Tha Dood,

Point taken. I'd be interested to see the first ascent registry topic revived as well. So where do we take it? Perhaps a new thread? Karl?

I've got a good example of some routes which could really use a specific history. I'll post there in the new venue when we're ready.

EDIT
Here is a repost of the link to the original discussion started by Karl about the Registry; the one which Tom just referenced: it's really quite good and I would vote this is the best place to resume the discussion:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=20192

A repost of the link where Karl states his intentions for the Registry:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=20494

Rick A

climber

Boulder, Colorado

Topic Author's Reply - Oct 9, 2011 - 09:08pm PT

I originally thought that most people would agree that adding a couple of bolts would be no big deal and an improvement to the route. It seemed to me that a 5.7 X pitch on a 5.9 route might be a “botch job,” as Roy put it. Almost 400 posts later, I have changed my mind and am persuaded not to add any bolts. Here is why.

Crunch mentioned early on that if anyone had done the pitch and wanted to leave it alone, that should be the decision. Well, it turns out that several here have done the pitch and most of those advocate leaving it alone. This does not deprive the resourceful from experiencing that third pitch. There are ways to do the route if you don’t want to lead it such as rigging a top rope or Werner’s “greater fool” theory: getting someone else to lead it.

But new bolts would permanently deprive those who want to do the pitch in its original state. I don’t buy the idea that one could just skip the added bolts and have the same experience. For example, I knew the Superpin history when I led the route and considered skipping the rogue bolt (added after Henry’s ascent) for the historical value. But self preservation outweighed my sense of history when I got there and I gladly clipped it. If it’s there, you will be hard pressed not to use it.

I hadn’t considered at all about the value of the pitch as a test piece for those who don’t climb at the highest levels. One might not ever do the Bachar Yerian, but Superchicken pitch three, perhaps. Thadood said to leave it as a test piece for those who desire to be tested. That works for me.

There is also much to be said for keeping some climbs where visits are rare. I see the value of establishing another potential,“Snake Dike” -like 5.7 classic, but there may be greater value in keeping some climbs lesser travelled. Climbing is a strict, and sometimes brutal, meritocracy: not everyone gets to do every climb.

Survival and others discussed a responsibility to make the route safe to prevent the possibility of fatalities in the future. This principle of building in safety for its own sake would neuter all risk in climbing. We all must accept responsibility for our own climbing actions. It really makes little sense for climbers to risk making our short time on this planet even shorter, but all climbers do this, to some extent, in exchange for our sport’s intangible rewards. The guidebooks warn of the X rating, and no one has been lured into a possible “trap”,even after all these years. I think I’ll sleep just fine.

I may have become "weenified" in my later years, but that should not be a license to “dumb down” a route to bring it in line with my present capabilities, even if the canons of the North American Retrobolting Ethic allow it. And there is always next year: maybe I’ll rage against the dying of the light by training and leading it next summer. Or better yet, Jim W. will go off his medicine and provide me with a snug top rope.

I mentioned Messner’s 1971 Murder of the Impossible article up thread and come back to it again. Bolts have always been a controversial topic in Yosemite climbing. One of the posters on this thread, Don Lauria, did the second ascent of the Dawn Wall with Royal Robbins with the intention of erasing the route by removing its bolts. I expect that Lauria and Robbins felt compelled to take action because they thought the spirit of adventure they had experienced as big wall pioneers was threatened.

Maybe retrobolting Superchicken P3 wouldn’t be the murder of the impossible, but it might still be a crime: petty theft of future adventures. In this case, preserving adventure means refraining from taking action and that is what I intend to do.

Thanks for all of your comments and a lively, fun discussion.

MH2

climber

Oct 9, 2011 - 11:39pm PT

A lot of experience and its brainy cousin history in this thread.

Although Rick A above concludes not to add bolts to the 3rd pitch of Super Chicken, I believe it would also be wise for him to explicitly state whether he is also against others doing that, even though I feel that is 99.99% implied in his last post.

WBraun

climber

Oct 10, 2011 - 12:10am PT

Damn Ricky .....

Just blast some bolts in yer route if you want.

I'll back ya up ......

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Oct 10, 2011 - 11:05am PT

Well-done Ricky!
No personal insult intended by my use of the colloquial pejorative.

Rhodo-Router

Gym climber

the f#%*!n couch.

Oct 10, 2011 - 12:15pm PT

Whew!

LongAgo

Trad climber

Oct 10, 2011 - 06:34pm PT

Rick A,

Your call and as I said previously, a reasoned decision by FA party either way seems fine to me and you gave your reasoned reasons. On top of that, we had a provocative and wide ranging thread discussion on the whole business of retrobolting, another plus, though obviously there are "miles to go before we sleep" on that topic, if we ever sleep.

Tom Higgins
LongAgo

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Oct 10, 2011 - 07:01pm PT

We will never sleep on that topic, but hopefully we'll have a nice glass of wine or two along the way ...

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Oct 10, 2011 - 07:21pm PT

With a route name like "Super Chicken", the decision could have gone either way.

The cruxes of the harder slab routes at Squamish are often reasonably bolted, but easier sections are more runout. The general theory being that if you can get up the 5.11 part, you shouldn't have much trouble with the 5.9. After all, not one said that you have to climb it - there are alternatives.

G_Gnome

Trad climber

In the mountains... somewhere...

Oct 10, 2011 - 07:25pm PT

Roy, thanks for the fun and thoughtful proddings.

Ricky, good call!

bhilden

Trad climber

Mountain View, CA

Oct 10, 2011 - 07:33pm PT

I still think there is a difference between a climb that was sparsely bolted because it was too difficult to stop on lead and drill(example: Bachar-Yerian) and a climb where the FA party could have put in lots of bolts but just didn't feel like it because they were tired, impatient, etc.(example: Super Chicken).

I think it can be argued that if you believe that the FA party "owns" the route that you will agree that that puts the responsibility on the FA party to do the best job they can do to bolt a route. I don't think anyone is going to take Bachar to task for the paucity of bolts on Bachar-Yerian because he was one of the best climbers in the world at the time of the FA and if he couldn't stop to place bolts then there is a good likelihood that few others could have done better.

But, in the case of Super Chicken, and please correct me if I am wrong, the reason there are no bolts and no bolted anchor on the third pitch is that the FA party was getting impatient and just wanted to finish the climb. Clearly, there were opportunities to place bolts, but RA chose to just run it out and get off the route ASAP.

I think it could be argued that in that instance, RA had a responsibility to place enough bolts to not make it a death lead. That doesn't mean a bolt every 10 feet, but a few bolts to keep a fall from ripping out the belay or killing the leader would seem reasonable.

G_Gnome

Trad climber

In the mountains... somewhere...

Oct 10, 2011 - 07:54pm PT

Bruce, there were lots of places to stop on both the second and third pitches of the Bachar Yerian and place more bolts. Bachar didn't place more because he was making a statement. Was that a viable statement? I sure think so!

tolman_paul

Trad climber

Anchorage, AK

Oct 10, 2011 - 08:02pm PT

One thing I don't recall seeing mentioned was the feasibility of slinging knobs, or say placing sky hooks in opposition and using a screamer. At only 5.7 in the meadows, there has to be a few knobs or peanuts that could be slung.

Sometimes in our, there is no crack we must drill mentality, we miss out on other options.

bhilden

Trad climber

Mountain View, CA

Oct 10, 2011 - 08:08pm PT

Jan,

if that is the case on Bachar-Yerian then I stand corrected, though I think my point about "artificially" creating a dangerous route still stands.

Years ago, a friend of mine and I put up a route on Pennyroyal Arches (we called it Myopia as a play on The Vision, but somehow it got into the guidebook as UFR). I would love to have stopped and drilled bolts wherever I could, but the climbing was sufficiently difficult for us that there are only three bolts on each pitch(both pitches are 5.10 something). In fact, my partner took a nasty fall trying to stand and drill what would become the second bolt on the first 5.10 pitch.

A few years ago, I went back with Clint to rebolt that route and noticed a line about 50 feet left. I came back a year later with Clint and we bolted the line on lead as well. The route is 5.7, but there were enough places to stop and drill that we put in about 6 or 7 bolts plus a couple of gear placements on the crux pitch.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that climbing ability and terrain should be the primary factors in determining how you bolt a route on lead and that the FA party has a responsibility to do the best job they can in putting up a route.

Tarbuster

climber

right here, right now

Oct 10, 2011 - 08:44pm PT

I agree with that Bruce.

And here's a distinction: the first person up doesn't so much own the route as they own the statement. (What remains is owned by all of us).

And that statement ought to fit thoughtfully into the larger context of its offering to the community. Which is why an appropriate mix/match of difficulty and run out constitutes the quality of the statement and hence the gift.

The Bachar Yerian is a statement of beautiful proportion.
Super Chicken, perhaps not so, but the rule we have in place is a pretty good arbitrary limiter, which is also a statement and in many ways a gift to the community as well because it attempts preservation.

Greg Barnes

climber

Oct 10, 2011 - 09:13pm PT

please correct me if I am wrong, the reason there are no bolts and no bolted anchor on the third pitch

There was a bolted anchor on the FA, if you read upthread carefully you'll see that RA remembers placing one (while JW remembers the opposite). There are still several pitches above to the top, and so there's a chance that the memory is from a runout pitch above (I led a quite long 5.7 knob runout up there one time, there were easier cracks around but the knobs were awesome).

One thing I don't recall seeing mentioned was the feasibility of slinging knobs, or say placing sky hooks in opposition and using a screamer.

No knobs to sling, even just for a knob "drape" (as opposed to a knob tie-off), I checked carefully when we were up there. Hooks don't typically work on lower angle Tuolumne knobs (or the only knobs that would be hook-able are the ones that would obviously snap).

tradmanclimbs

Ice climber

Pomfert VT

Oct 10, 2011 - 09:24pm PT

Standard G rated slab = 4 bolts per 50 to 60m pitch for slab up 5.8ish Still spicy but not warented to earn even a PG in the guide book around these parts. Sea of Holes on Whitehorse for example is listed in the Ed webster guide as Good protection yet sports mandatory 60ft runout. Do not know how long the pitch in question is but keeping the runouts in the 40ft range would be a great way to get folks to climb it and still have an exciteing day. Over bolted slab is ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ coma induceing yet stupidly underbolted is just a waste of a great route. YMMV

Todd Gordon

Trad climber

Joshua Tree, Cal

Oct 12, 2011 - 12:25am PT

tom Carter

Social climber

Oct 12, 2011 - 12:44am PT

Thanks for painting them Todd.

Hope that serves as an example - I've seen a number up at Donner that were painted in place...Jesus!

tradmanclimbs

Ice climber

Pomfert VT

Oct 12, 2011 - 06:02am PT

If you need to paint em in place make a cardboard mask that fits over the bolt and protects the rock.

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 12, 2011 - 05:00pm PT

[quote]Mr. Higgins, Tha Dood,

Point taken. I'd be interested to see the first ascent registry topic revived as well. So where do we take it? Perhaps a new thread? Karl?

I've got a good example of some routes which could really use a specific history. I'll post there in the new venue when we're ready.

EDIT
Here is a repost of the link to the original discussion started by Karl about the Registry; the one which Tom just referenced: it's really quite good and I would vote this is the best place to resume the discussion:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=20192

A repost of the link where Karl states his intentions for the Registry:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=20494[/quote]

I'm out of the net and loop a lot for a month or so. You guys do what you think is wise. I tried to get this moving a bit but now surrender it to the self-organizing system of our community to decide how to roll with it. Whoever has the most time and energy to devote is in charge

Peace

Karl

Rick A

climber

Boulder, Colorado

Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2011 - 08:47pm PT

As to the mystery of the conflicting memories of Jim and I about the 3rd pitch belay, I think Greg has solved it.

I do remember placing two bolts at the end of Pitch 3. After that there are still several rope lengths of easy climbing to the top. On one of those pitches, finding no anchors, I may have plunked down on a ledge with the trusty hip belay, braced my feet, and told Jim to come on up.

I have done this before on alpine climbs and easy rock, but only when I felt a fall by the second was very unlikely and that my braced belay position could handle a top rope fall.

That’s my story now and I’m sticking to it.

Rain Man

Sport climber

Bishop

Jun 20, 2012 - 01:11am PT

I know this is an older thread and one that may have reached its conclusion, but I just did Super Chicken last week and have just read through a majority of the 400+ posts from last Fall (many of which were not only very well written and thoughtful, but authored by the some of the TM/Yosemite pioneers). I want to throw an idea out there and see if it has any traction/value to add to the discussion of this route specifically.

As background, I have climbed in TM since 1992 and lived in Bishop for the past decade. I learned to climb on the runout faces of North Conway and Canon, and in the Valley and TM; in a way I feel unqualified to chime in when so many of the TM pioneers already have, but would like to add the prospective as a “mortal” climber who does have experience on many of the TM classics.

Arguments already made in this thread that resound with me are: “the slippery slope of retro bolting not really occurring at TM, Super Chicken is not one of the established run-out test pieces, no one owns the rock resource, honoring the uniqueness and character of TM routes, and providing road-map type routes for moderate climbers to learn/aspire to the skills of running it out on friction face climbing with some degree of safety.

Right now as it stands 95% of the people who currently climb or will climb Super Chicken experience the route as a short, fun approach pitch to a cool belay, and then one of the best 5.9 crack pitches in TM. The route is then rapped. It’s a 3 star, 1 pitch crack climb. That’s just the reality of how the route is climbed today. Very good but short.

I did not climb the 5.7 run-out face pitch last weekend but did climb Greg’s route below and left of Super Chicken that conveniently provides a nice single rope rappel route. I climbed on the amazing knobs on the slabby ramp below pitch 3 of Super Chicken and got an idea of how good the 5.7 climbing on P3 of SC might be.

If a few, respectfully placed bolts were added to pitch 3 of Super Chicken you would “create” one of the best moderate routes in TM: a route to rival West and South Cracks. You’d have the best 5.9 crack pitch and one of the best 5.7 face pitches- both about 50 meters long on a line that goes to the top of one of the major formations. The route, as experienced by most climbers, would change from a very good 1 pitch climb to an EPIC TM route.

Yes, people would come and there’d be lines on weekends. The selfish side of me wants to keep this one pitch crack secret. And yes, that potentially epic climb already exists as it currently stands, and is there for people willing to face the runout pitch to experience (to many this might even add to its appeal). But right now, the full route to the top probably gets done 5 times a year. Seems like a waste of rock that was really made for intermediate climbers.

There is already a lot of “claimed,” very runout, intermediate face climbing in TM; it’s not a scarce resource, and there’s no shortage of those types of routes to climb. What there aren’t as many of is reasonably well protected moderate classics- that’s why they are so crowded. There are several climbers putting up new routes in TM the past decade that have found, to me at least, a respectable balance between extremely runout/dangerous pitches and over protected, dull, face pitches that dishonor TM's heritage/character. Many of them have already weighed in on this thread and would probably be willing to undertake potential retro bolting if the FA agree to the idea of adding bolts but wasn’t interested in actually adding the bolts.

I personally think that this route is just so potentially good as a 4-pitch outing, that if I had done the first ascent I’d be so excited to share it with moderate climbers in a way that challenges them without completely threatening them. I personally would want to leave that type of legacy route to the climbing community. There should always be the B-Y’s at the various grades in TM, but maybe this route’s real, intrinsic character and flavor suggests it exist as a different climb than currently equipped. Maybe some pieces of rock want to enjoy the company of people climbing them, to enjoy the energy and life that respectful parties of climbers bring onto the rock with them, even if it means adding a couple of 3/8” pieces of metal to make that passage happen. For example, a route like Snake Dike just seems to be Half Dome crying out to people to come climb me! Maybe that’s Super Chicken’s destiny?

Keith

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jun 20, 2012 - 02:03am PT

thanks for Rain Man for the bump, and recounting his experience on the climb.

I'd like to go and climb it, including the upper pitches, before providing an opinion on the rebolting. Having climbed in TM for a while now, I suspect I could run out the 5.7, it goes fast if you aren't looking for bolts or pro opportunities...

but having read through this whole thread, albeit quickly, my one recurring thought is that not all climbs are for all climbers. there are a lot of climbs I think I want to do, and probably could do, but I don't do. there are lots of reasons, probably none of them good. but the fact is that a climber has to learn to respect their own abilities, and has to know what and what not to climb.

as a general matter I think it's ok to leave a climb that a number of climbers are going to choose not to do, there are some that will choose, and they will have a unique experience.

it's not like there aren't other climbs in TM

jaaan

Trad climber

Chamonix, France

Jun 20, 2012 - 06:54am PT

It seems a very great shame that the one of the easier pitches on the route should be the stopper... that to lead this 5.7 pitch, you'd have to be, say, a 5.10 or 11 leader - when the hardest pitch is only 5.9 and very well protected (I'm guessing?). When you made the FA, Rick, you dictated to the rest of the climbing community that they'd either have to be able to solo that pitch or back off the route. That was then, of course, and this is now, but the fact that you weren't putting up a statement route like the B/Y, it seems to me that you'd be doing a great favour to moderate climbers like me, by adding a few well placed bolts.

climbingcook

Trad climber

Jun 20, 2012 - 11:29am PT

Should we lower the rim on a basketball court so that everyone can dunk?

Part of what is missing in today's modern climber is the willingness to take the time to work up to things, improve one's skill physically and, more importantly, a solid mental focus.

Perhaps it's a symptom of our instant gratification society, wanting everything NOW!

My position remains the same on this, and any other Tuolumne testpiece. Leave it as exaclty that......a test.

By what bizarre logic do you come to the conclusion that someone soloing 5.7 terrain has "worked up to it"? Either the climbing is cruiser for them or they are in over their head. I'd argue that at this point there are far more climbers who want to spend a nice day climbing in a beautiful place than there are people looking to prove themselves on a low angle dome.

Personally, I couldn't possibly care less about hiking a 5.7 slab, well bolted or not. I think it's ridiculous to use laziness on the part of the FA team to justify a beginner-level route being poorly protected so that the very people who would find it engaging to climb are unable to attempt it.

jaaan

Trad climber

Chamonix, France

Jun 20, 2012 - 11:32am PT

My position remains the same on this, and any other Tuolumne testpiece. Leave it as exaclty that......a test.

But isn't that the point - it isn't a test piece.

survival

Big Wall climber

Terrapin Station

Jun 20, 2012 - 11:43am PT

My position remains the same too. There shouldn't be much of any 5.7X that's in a guidebook. It's an ego trip for those that have done it IMO.

I have done plenty of X in my life, but I try to avoid it in every situation possible now. NO ONE is advocating turning it into a sport clip job.

I've seen lots of 5.9 climbers come unglued on 5.7. RA might be able to sleep well if someone took a fatal plunge off of it, but I wouldn't if it were my route. It's not worth dying for.

jaaan

Trad climber

Chamonix, France

Jun 20, 2012 - 11:49am PT

I'm quite glad I saw this thread. My guidebook - Reid/Falkenstein - just has that pitch down as 5.7.

caughtinside

Social climber

Davis, CA

Jun 20, 2012 - 11:55am PT

By what bizarre logic do you come to the conclusion that someone soloing 5.7 terrain has "worked up to it"?

Makes perfect sense to me. I've been climbing 5.7 for many years, but I have only been soloing 5.7 for a much shorter time. It's a different process to 'work up to' than just pure difficulty.

Just because you can lead 5.7 comfortably does not mean you are ready to solo it.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jun 20, 2012 - 12:00pm PT

it seems the majority of climbers who climb this do not do the upper pitches...
there are some that do

why not leave it at that?

Chris Brent

Sport climber

San Francisco

Jun 20, 2012 - 12:26pm PT

How did the term "test piece", when referring to a free climbing grade, come to mean, "You fall, you die or get really hurt"? Isn't "test piece" supposed to be about a climb being the representative climb at a grade in a given area. What if someone FA's the prefect 5.9 "test piece" but makes it a well bolted line? Should we pull bolts so it's R+ or X just so we can stroke our egos on us completing the "test piece".

jaaan

Trad climber

Chamonix, France

Jun 20, 2012 - 12:40pm PT

you have obviously not climbed the route.

You're absolutely right. Clearly Rick A - who has climbed it - questions his actions though, or this thread wouldn't exist.

jaaan

Trad climber

Chamonix, France

Jun 20, 2012 - 12:51pm PT

There's really no need to get angry here. I will stay off it. I was trying to contribute.

surfstar

climber

Santa Barbara, CA

Jun 20, 2012 - 12:53pm PT

From the FA's OP

SC is not a test piece like the Bachar Yarian or Southern Belle.

I started climbing two years ago (in the Meadows too), on my third trip (5-6th day of climbing) I got to TR the crack on Super Chicken. I had only one fall despite not knowing how to hand jam yet.
This pitch is on my ticklist this summer as a lead. I think I would feel comfortable leading this now, but would never think of getting on that second pitch. 3-4 bolts - maybe. Perusing the guidebooks for climbs to do this season and what gives me pause are pitches like the top out on South Crack, due to lack of bolts. I do like to have something to aspire to and something that will test me mentally more than physically. I love the traditional ethic of Tuolumne and how badass those FAs were.

However, 0 bolts is plainly a solo. The FA didn't feel he needed any, but now questions that decision when he no longer climbs as hard. A 5.7 pitch for 5.11+ climbers. It wouldn't be the end of the world if bolts were added. It also wouldn't be the end if none ever were.

Despite all our posturing, its still up to the FA's decision.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jun 20, 2012 - 01:15pm PT

young guys become old guys, with a little luck...

style debates might not seem very relevant... but taken as a true debate, they help to review history, intention and temperament, and lead to acceptable solutions to community issues

the FA/FFA team are a part of that community, the community has grown, expanded and diversified over time and some of these debates are worth engaging in

there was a thread (I'll try to find it later) about when the FA/FFA "rights" end and the community becomes the determining factor in route modification, obviously routes pass into "public domain" at some point, popular routes do this earlier than obscure routes, most people don't have a strong opinion about Super Chicken because they haven't done it

as some point, the community opinion may outweigh the FA/FFA team opinion

my feeling is that we leave it as it is.

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Jun 20, 2012 - 02:01pm PT

I still think the 'rule' that the FA decides the nature of the route is the baseline and a good one at that.

I think there is a little controversy in Tuolumne due to the era in which many of the climbs were put up. You have some of the best climbers in the world, honed in Yosemite Valley, putting up routes on moderate lines with cruxes below their ability so there are more run out climbs than in many other places. It's part of what makes Tuolumne climbing special, but it also means there are a higher percentage of routes that appeal to a limited number of climbers.

From the 1992 Falcon guide I have about:

26 climbs no rating
1 G rated
33 PG
17 PG/R
37 R
6 R/X
8 X

There are a limited number of climbs. And there are lots of climbers. So you do see crowds on popular, well protected climbs, and few ascents on many run out climbs.

Again I go back to the FA prerogative rule. If it was my FA I would probably add a few bolts:
*I think there are plenty of run out climbs in Tuolumne and not enough well protected moderates
*I would want to maximize the star rating for the climb
*I would want the last pitch to follow the character of the rest of the climb. I think run outs should typically occur on terrain about 3 or 4 number grades lower than the crux, so for example a 5.9 climb has 5.6 runouts

However:
*Shagedelic is nearby and it's similar and has more protection
*As mentioned Tuolumne's history is run out climbs
*You lose that challenge for people that want that testpiece

I think an argument can be made either way, but it's Rick's decision and I'm happy he thought it through and asked for input.

Todd Townsend

Social climber

Bishop, CA

Jun 20, 2012 - 03:00pm PT

There's been a lot of debate about keeping the route within the character of the meadows. Here's an honest question: How many routes in Tuolumne have entire pitches with absolutely no pro at only 2 grades below the crux pitch?

Having recently climbed South Crack I'd agree that it's an all time classic, in part because of the runout 4th pitch. How classic would it be if that pitch wasn't relatively short (90 ft) and didn't have pro halfway through? Would it still be as great a climb if the majority of climbers rapped off at the end of the crack?

(edited for spelling and clarity)

climbingcook

Trad climber

Jun 20, 2012 - 04:47pm PT

Having recently climbed South Crack I'd agree that it's an all time classic, in part because of the runout 4th pitch. How classic would it be if that pitch wasn't relatively short (90 ft) and didn't have the pro halfway through? Would it still be as great a climb if the majority of clibmers rapped off at the end of the crack?

The last pitch of south crack is just part of the decent. Wandering around on 5.4 terrain does nothing to improve the climb. It's the same basic thing as the top of travelers buttress and the other main wall climbs at the leap.

If there were a bolt up there somewhere I probably wouldn't even find it, I seem to take a different path to the top every time a climb deteriorates into steep hiking.

Todd Townsend

Social climber

Bishop, CA

Jun 20, 2012 - 07:54pm PT

It sounds like you're thinking of a different pitch than I am. I mean the 5.7R pitch where you cut left at the top of the crack and end up in the scoop belay. From there, there's still 2 more pitches to the top.

johntp

Trad climber

socal

Jun 20, 2012 - 09:28pm PT

Your choice. It is your route.

BITD as a weekend warrior, on a low gravity day I could thrutch my way up routes in the low 10s, but mostly led 8s and 9s. I had an issue with the hardmen running it out on the easier grades because it was so far below their skill level. Such were the ethics of the day and I had neither the skill or cajones to take the risk. I could deal with moderate R climbs but stayed away from the Xs and hard Rs. I missed some really nice climbing due to the FA team's climbing below their grade and not puting in some pro for lesser climbers.

In my mind test pieces should remain pure, but for moderate grade, high quality routes that are just fun stuff and have sweet climbing, what is the harm? That said, I definitely am in the camp that retro bolting should only be done by the FA party or with their consent.

Byran

climber

Merced, CA

Jun 20, 2012 - 10:06pm PT

I don't understand the argument for adding just a bolt or two, to make it R instead of R/X. What's the difference between a 50ft runout and a 100ft runout? When you're feeling shaky up there on those crumbling knobs are you really going to look down and think "ah, it's cool, I got a bolt 40ft below me"...?

Bolts every six, no five, every five feet! I'm not a pussy, I just got a wife and kids to think about, unlike you reckless dirtbags with nothing to live for.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jun 20, 2012 - 10:31pm PT

Harlequin Route 5.7
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1843297

last pitch, 5.6, is runout for ever... I ended up sitting in a divot giving a hip belay on top... sounds familiar...

you wouldn't want to fall leading that last pitch, but you're probably not going to

of course, it probably isn't a route for a new 5.7 leader, either... but that leader will figure that out on the first pitch, second at most... and rap off

climber

Jun 20, 2012 - 10:33pm PT

Rick,
you are lawyering with yourself...does quantity stroke your ego, or does quality?
Perhaps, letting go of your professional training will allow you to follow your heart.
Much love
paola

bergbryce

Mountain climber

South Lake Tahoe, CA

Jun 21, 2012 - 01:21am PT

From the 1992 Falcon guide I have about:

26 climbs no rating
1 G rated
33 PG
17 PG/R
37 R
6 R/X
8 X

Wow, the 2006 Falcon is quite an upgrade. It has close to 950 routes by my (somewhat hasty) count.

Ever since I got this guidebook I've wanted to calculate the percentage of R rated climbs that are in it... Well that time has come. Did it this evening.

Here is the short version and it is according to a rather hasty review and a few things need to be taken into consideration....

1. I did not separate out PG/R and R/X, a rating was rounded up, so a PG/R was counted as an R and an R/X is an X. If you were to break these down into the actual individual ratings, it would be skewed a bit more towards the PG end.

2. A handful of areas were not included, mostly "alpine" areas like the stuff past Tioga Pass and Cathedral and Tenaya Peaks proper. What I think this discussion is centered on is the beautiful domes that run basically from Olmstead Point to Lembert Dome.

3. All protection ratings were taken from Rock Climbing Tuolumne Meadows, Reid-Faulkenstein 4th ed, 2006

Totals:
947 routes

TR = 10 routes = <1%
Other* = 90 routes = 10%
PG = 326 routes = 34%
R = 403 routes = 43%
X = 118 routes = 12%

*Other typically represents routes that were not given a PG, R or X rating with a few aid lines included

Formatting got screwed but if you want the table, let me know...

#Routes TR Other PG R X
Coyote Rocks 6 6
Roadrunner Rock 6 5 1
Moya Wall 4 4
DeGaulle's Nose 4 1 3
Olmstead Cyn. L 4 2 2
Olmstead Cyn. R 25 4 18 3
Osprey Overhang 4 4
Murphy Creek 16 3 4 7 2
Stately Pleas. 58 1 6 10 35 6
Harlequin Dome 12 8 4
Guppie Wall 6 6
The Shark 8 1 2 5
Mtr's Dome 21 1 3 15 2
Circle A Wall 7 3 2 2
Bunny Slopes 12 2 5 5
The Block Area 13 1 5 5 2
Phobos/Demos 18 2 10 6
The Arena 8 1 7
Low Profile D. 22 1 7 9 5
S. Whizz Dome 13 6 1 6
N. Whizz Dome 13 2 5 4 2
Hammer Dome 23 2 5 13 3
River Wall 6 6
Lava Dome 5 2 1 2
Alcatraz Rock 1 1
Dark Side Dome 12 1 4 5 2
Dome Perignon 8 4 4
Doda Dome 2 1 1
Micro Dome 3 3
Cowabunga 8 3 5
Western Front 6 5 1
Daff Dome 41 3 7 27 4
W. Cottage Dome 5 1 3 1
C. Cottage Dome 13 9 4
E. Cottage Dome 9 2 6 1
E. Cott - WF 15 1 7 4 3
E. Cott - NW 7 2 5
Pothole Dome 1 1
Canopy World 17 1 11 4 1
Twin Bridges 58 2 2 38 16
Lembert - NWF 16 7 9
Lembert - WF 14 8 6
Lembert - EW 27 4 11 12
Dog Dome 4 4
Puppy Dome 4 3 1
Marmot Dome 7 1 5 1
Razor Back 3 3
Whale's Back 13 2 7 4
Fairview Dome 42 1 3 27 11
Lamb Dome 30 6 20 4
Drug Dome 14 4 3 7
Mariuolumne D. 25 4 11 10
Lost Wall 8 1 4 3
Islands (Med.) 11 1 6 2 2
Medlicott - SF 5 3 2
Med. - N. End 16 2 6 6 2
Med. - Middle 33 2 9 15 7
Med. West 33 3 20 9 1
Med. Far West 10 1 3 6
Sticks & Stones 6 3 3
Virgin Dome 4 1 3
W. Farthing W. 11 11
Dozier Dome 19 3 7 6 3
Pwiack Dome 30 1 8 15 6
Pennyroyal HW 3 3
Tenaya Pk Walls 10 2 7 1
Skyline/Power 12 11 1
Guns/Prctology 2 2
Dike Dome 15 3 11 1

**Totals 947 10 90 326 403 118
Percentage 1% 10% 34% 43% 12%**

gonzo chemist

climber

Fort Collins, CO

Jun 21, 2012 - 01:32am PT

I'm super tempted to go do this route after all this debate. Ultra classic crack pitch and super runnout moderate knob-climbing? sounds great! Not sure when I'll be in TM next; but this is now on my list. Bolts or no bolts....I'm climbing that damn pitch.

surfstar

climber

Santa Barbara, CA

Jun 21, 2012 - 01:33am PT

Wow, 55% are R or X rated. Geez. Those guys were badass.

Todd Townsend

Social climber

Bishop, CA

Jun 21, 2012 - 02:22am PT

^^ By my calculations, that's the 3rd "regular" pitch.

For me, it's the second pitch.

I was just going by the Supertopo pitch count. We actually ran together Supertopo pitches 2 and 3, so it was our pitch 3. YMMV.

It doesn't really matter what number pitch it is, I just think it's a similar kind of route with well protected crack climbing followed by runout face climbing. I kind of doubt that it would have the same classic status if there were no pro at all on that pitch. In fact, my guess is that the alternate Supertopo finish would become the standard finish, which would be too bad because that and the following pitches have great climbing.

ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber

San Francisco, Ca

Jun 21, 2012 - 02:38am PT

Reality is that a very small, skilled, local and slab loving population who were extremely comfortable on a type of climbing that lends itself to runouts is being replaced by a relatively large number of weekend climbers who don't understand the point of risking their lives on a pitch of 5.7.

The existing well protected moderates in TM are insanely over impacted. I don't care either way, and don't really give a sh#t about slab climbing in general, but those that care about preserving history should look at how a hard line, no tolerance for change stance has worked out elsewhere.

raymond phule

climber

Jun 21, 2012 - 02:40am PT

Wow, 55% are R or X rated. Geez. Those guys were badass.

They where probably badass but 5.12-5.13 climbers running it out on 5.7-5.9 do not need to be that impressive.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jul 9, 2012 - 12:28am PT

went up today and did the third pitch... figured I needed an informed opinion...

I lead the first pitch to the start of the crack... be careful going up as there are a number of loose blocks there, one quite loose and dangerous for the belayer (and the rope).

Gary got the fantastic second pitch, this is a great crack, I think the best so far in Tuolumne that I've climbed. Fun moves and I didn't think it was a very difficult 5.9 at all.

Then I got the third pitch. I worked up directly above the belay on some "steps" then headed left to scout it out. A sea of knobs went up and sort of over to the arete that drops off on the west (climber's right) side.

Looked good so I went for it. I got a knob tie off, and probably could have gotten another (though more questionable as it was more like a blade, might have broken, might have cut the sling)

The knobs directed me towards the exposed side of the wall, but they kept on coming. At some point they become scarce and you've got to pull a 5.7 slab move or two to head up to the bolted belay station.

I got there and let out a yelp that apparently scared Gary as his new 70 m rope was not out half way... which was the length given in the SuperTopo... 130 ft. Actually, the pitch seems slightly more than 100 ft.

Here is an image of Gary not quite 10' out from the belay.

The pitch was very manageable, you don't want to fall and certainly a 5.7 leader wouldn't be able to keep it together what with the exposure and all.

We elected to rap off and climb something else.... the continuation pitches didn't look all that compelling, and we did what we had wanted to do on this route.

My recommendation is to leave it as it is. The upper pitches are not as classic as the 2nd, so it's not like people are missing out on a 5 or 6 pitch climb because they don't want to do the 3rd pitch.

There are a lot of other climbs that gain this particular summit without X rated pitches, so it's not like you can't find a good route to the top.

Finally, you can completely see Ricky's thinking on this, why he didn't stop to put a bolt in... you are just out there climbing...
...that feeling is worth keeping it as it is.

The part about not putting bolts in for a belay anchor is also quite real when you get up to the bolts, if you learned to belay from a stance. There is both a place to put your butt (on a lower angle slab section above a dike) and a great nob for both feet to be on. Given the low angle of the pitch, the forces of holding a fall would be minimal for most of the pitch, becoming more difficult as the rope distance shortened. Given the time (1974) and the experience of the climbers, I wouldn't count it as out of the question that this was the decision. On the other hand the thought of being roped together with no anchors in that particular setting makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up... perhaps back then it wouldn't have.

Of course, now that I've done it, I don't really care what the final decision is...

drljefe

climber

El Presidio San Augustin del Tucson

Jul 9, 2012 - 12:47am PT

Way to go Ed.
I like your perspective, and first hand no less.

Rhodo-Router

Gym climber

the secret topout on the Chockstone Chimney

Jul 9, 2012 - 11:51am PT

Ed, this is the internet. Informed opinions are not welcome here.

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Jul 10, 2012 - 04:17am PT

Ed...Very interested in the thread about where the FFA rights end and the community takes over. Hope you can find it. Sounds interesting. Thanks for the TR up the Chicken. I had similar thoughts along what Paola said as well and how it related to what ontheedgeandscaredtodeath said. There were but a handful doing their thing at that time and place, unknown and obscure. And as ED says, history and intention are important. I also gather from your input Ed that you do care what happens to these routes, even after you've done them. As you point out, Super Chicken is not unique in having run out, unprotected pitches at the top nor are those pitches ones (perhaps the "community") want to seem to climb. In any case, other climbs have been retro bolted to make them safer with FA consent and there doesn't seem to be a rush to do the same on other climbs as some fear, especially on pitches not regarded as "classic". Most "classic" climbs are fiercely protected and it is rare (although unfortunate cases like Poker Face in the valley are there)to have retro bolts placed on them without comment from the "community". And as to raymond phule's and others comment about not being impressed about 5.12-5.13 climbers running out 5.7's et.al. Your modern day point of reference doesn't apply. If you talk to those FAist's they didn't think of themselves as 12 or 13 climbers simply because those ratings didn't exist. They were the ones who created the base line and reference point. You'd be hard pressed to find most of those 70's and into the 80's slab climbs rated any harder then 11.c. And in talking to some of the FAists, they seem to concur that run-outs were, for the most part, done out of convenience more then ego or worrying about future generations. Of course some started to sand bag and climb for the ego, but only after the initial reference was set from which to sand bag from. Regardless of style, as Ed said, history and intent are important to maintain for reasoned debate and discussion. At any rate, I don't think adding a bolt to Super Chicken is going to cause a rush to change the face of those old, bold slab climbs in Tuolumne, especially when you factor in those keepers of the flame. The rogues who don't really care about the consensus of the "community"

Rick A

climber

Boulder, Colorado

Topic Author's Reply - Jul 10, 2012 - 11:01am PT

Well done, Ed! Great to get a perspective from the sharp end.

Your account perfectly illustrates what is sacrificed when we eliminate risk from the climbing game. I doubt you would have scared your partner with that exuberant yelp when you reached the belay, if there had there been a string of bolts on that pitch. As Grossman puts it, there is a “deeper game” available to those who desire to play it (even at relatively easy levels of difficulty). This opportunity to engage in this game seems to have value for our community.

As I mentioned up thread, the no anchor belay incident that Jim referred to probably occurred higher, near the top of the crag, and on much easier terrain. I do seem to recall placing the bolts at the top of the third pitch and there is no other explanation for how the original quarter inch bolts got there.

You may have missed it, but I cast my vote on the retro-bolting issue up thread and hope the pitch will be left as is. Your opinion on this is in accord with mine.

By the way, did you take the far left option on the first pitch? I don’t remember any loose rock on that when I was up there last summer.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jul 10, 2012 - 11:42am PT

Rick, I missed your post since at some point I had hatched the plan to "just go and do it" before posting anymore.

Having that pitch correctly rated "5.7X" should inform anyone who would go up there that the protection is absent, though tying off some knobs is a possibility, the real business up high is unprotectable.

Sometimes I'm a weenie and sometimes I'm a hero, and in my old age I'm well served by recognizing which of these two climbers I am on a certain day... the fraction of time spent as a weenie has been going up, but there are moments....

The "inner game" of climbing has always been the bigger game for me, certainly strength, training, etc, all play their part, but when one is mentally strong it seems that physical difficulties are overcome. That's the way it is with me... so climbing p3 of Super Chicken was one of assessing my mental "strength" on that day. And it was fun after the fact, during the act of climbing one just has to lock the concentration in and climb as if you could not fall.

My guess is that few will want to go up there and experience p3 because of the "X" but those who do will have a unique experience, and even understand a bit of what you experienced the first time...

...and though that pitch is now well documented, it might be harder for a current leader to go up and climb it than you faced on the FA, since you had the option to stop and put in a bolt if you wanted. The contemporary leader has no such option... and knows of the runout.

While it is hard to predict what the consequences of a fall would be, the 3 bolt anchor at the top of p2 is bomber, and the pitch length of 100' would give you about a 240 foot fall, with 40% stretch, you wouldn't hit the ground but you'd be pretty banged up... not something that is really an option. You wouldn't pull your buddy off the anchor either, it would likely be a soft force factor 2 fall.

All the same, it was a very fulfilling pitch, there is no doubt had there been bolts on the pitch I would have clipped them, it is what we do, limiting risk wherever we can. On that pitch as it is now, the way to limit risk is to be totally solid, and just go for it. The difficulty isn't the technical rating, it's the mental rating... for which we have no metric.

hoipolloi

climber

A friends backyard with the neighbors wifi

Jul 10, 2012 - 12:13pm PT

I have climbed in TM a lot over the past several years, I spent all of the previous two summers living and working up there, it was one of the best experiences of my life.

As climbing becomes more popular it seems that more people want safe and sane moderate routes, I can understand that. Fewer people care about and delve into the history behind what they are climbing. TM is a place where this history is essential to the climbing. Each route is about more than just the climb.

To truely climb in TM you have to understand both the era and they style of climbing. No doubt there was a good deal of chest pounding involved, but beyond that many routes are R-rated because of the nature of the climbing. Have you ever tried to drill in stance on hard slab routes? Can you even climb hard slab routes? If you are trying to put up a big route, it would take forever, destroy you and if you drilled it out to the expectation of many people these days, cost a fortune too.

Routes often have bolts where the FA was able to bolt or felt it necessary. Yes, this also means that some moderate routes are sparsely bolted, but if you know how to slab climb and you have invested the time Ito learning to slab climb, you likely won't find it to be so bad.

Many people, weekend warriors and new comers rush to TM expecting To jump onto the same grades they climb everywhere. Well, good luck doing that in TM, if you don't learn how to climb here, learn the technique required on this type of climbing you might get hurt.

Climbing isn't always as safe as you might want it to be. Put in the time, learn how to climb in TM. Maybe that means it isn't a good place for some weekend warriors or new climbers, tough luck, (there are a lot of weekend warriors that have it mastered though) seek out the routes that are safe and same until you are prepared to venture beyond.

The climbing in TM is a dying art, but there are guys (and gals) out there that are still mastering this incredible form of climbing (Bob J and Mikey S come to mind among others). We work at it over years, slab climbing is like learning to master a dance and when it comes together it is one of the most incredible types of climbing I have ever done or watched. I have invested a lot of time into this specific type of climbing to get good at it, I'm not as good at other types of climbing because of that...

To those people, I would recommend finding the moderates and learning the skill, put the grades aside, if your a gym climber or moderate climber you wouldnt jump on 5.11 crack climbing test pieces, dont think you can do it on slab routes either just because they have bolts and are on a 'face'. maybe you climb 5.12 at the gym, but up there you might not even climb 5.9. Get past the grade ego, learn the art, learn the history, if you don't like it, go elsewhere.

Also, I get frustrated sometimes with the runouts too sometimes, but in the end, it makes me appreciate the masters who came before me even more. If I don't feel 100%, I listen to that intuition and pick my routes accordingly. I get frustrated with the mentality that you should be able to show up at an area and just climb "your" grade right off the bat and if you can't, it should be retro'd.

End of rant against slab hate (one of the most difficult types of climbing out there, exemplified by the microscopic number of people who have mastered it these days, also why Honnold and TC are so damn legendary).

hoipolloi

climber

A friends backyard with the neighbors wifi

Jul 10, 2012 - 12:22pm PT

I'm not a pussy, I just got a wife and kids to think about, unlike you reckless dirtbags with nothing to live for.

Byran- that is exactly my above point, I don't think you are a pussy, but have you learned to slab climb? Have you invested the time into it? Could you even go and stance drill on the routes you are arguing should have more bolts? Probably not (not to sound mean, and he'll, maybe you could or maybe you are a master, I appologize if so..)

I have a lot to live for, my friends I climb on these routes with do too. But we have spent time learning the art so that we can go up there and dance the dance, sometimes there is a serious element and a mental game as well. And I love that about the climbing in TM. I you don't like it, seek out routes and locations that offer what you do like. Maybe try hiking.

You must be physically and mentally strong. You have to train body and mind (like a Jedi, oh yeah!)

climber

Jul 10, 2012 - 01:51pm PT

I quote Tyrus Bachar:

"Some people think about all the good things they could have done and feel bad.
I think about all the bad things I could have done and feel good".

tom Carter

Social climber

Jul 10, 2012 - 03:37pm PT

I get to revisit climbing in the Meadows every time I read these posts about Tuolumne. Thanks to all, great memories!

I climbed every summer in the Meadows throughout the 70's. I know those who put up the "test pieces" - at least most of those guys... And yes, there were times when the (FA) leader would be amused at the runouts, loving the freedom of continuous movement, reacting to the rock on his/her own terms.

But I also witnessed deep serious pondering, abject fear and incredible tenacity and fortitude in the face of danger - most of the time prowess and creativity won out. After a summer or three of leading up uncharted rock we all aimed to meet the historic standards, raise the bar and do the best we could on some of the most beautiful rock in the world.

While leading long runout routes most climbers on the sharp end were more affected by the romance, their love of the movement, the stone and the magical place that is Tuolumne than by their egos.

Of course there were exceptions, these often steal the show that is the distinctive undercurrent of Tuolumne's legacy.

mike m

Trad climber

black hills

Nov 15, 2013 - 11:08pm PT

To bolt or not to be

Don Lauria

Trad climber

Bishop, CA

Nov 19, 2014 - 10:52pm PT

Blast from the past.

Back in the summer of '74 TM Herbert and I had just finished doing the Yawn (for about the 3rd time) and as we walked back passed what is now the start of Superchicken, TM looked up and commented on how it looked like a prospective climbing route. We decided (being at the time weekend warriors) to come back next week and try to put up a route.

The next week, before venturing out to begin our new route, we checked the journal kept in the guide room and found that Rick had already done it and named it Superchicken.

Now imagine what a different route it might have been had TM and I put it up. I can't. We didn't carry a bolt kit.

Ed H

Trad climber

Santa Rosa, CA

Aug 17, 2015 - 12:59pm PT

Climbed Super Chicken (P1, P2) last weekend - wow - what a great route - certainly as good as West Crack on Daff. This route is perfect for someone pushing into 5.9 trad - just a few well protected 5.9 moves, followed by dreamy 5.8 jams, finishing with a fun face move (love that bolt! Thanks Rick and Jim!)

If you lead the 5.7X, can you link up with P5 & P6 of Chicken Little to top out?

lunacie

Social climber

New York, NY

Aug 17, 2015 - 01:26pm PT

Not new to ST, but I rarely post (if ever?)... no time like the present! This one's brought me out of the woodwork.

I always appreciate a well placed bolt, so I'm 100% for FA adding bolts where they feel are appropriate.

Haven't climbed in Tuolmne in many years, but spent a LOT of my early climbing days there, around '89-'93. Headed out this Sept, so it's on my mind.

Spent some time on seriously runout pitches in the meadows, and although I was younger, bolder, and climbing with seasoned partners, I still didn't find X-rated runouts to enhance my experience, mostly just to make me question my judgement / why I chose to lead that pitch.

Ed H

Trad climber

Santa Rosa, CA

Jul 31, 2016 - 10:13pm PT

Did another lap on Super Chicken P1-P2 today - love this route! Would love to lead the upper pitches someday. Happy to help with the project Rick if you decide to make P3 R instead of X.

The cool face move finish of P2

Looking up at the gorgeous knobs of P3 (5.7X)

ß Î Ø T Ç H

Boulder climber

ne'er–do–well

Jul 31, 2016 - 10:39pm PT

Happy to help with the project

F*#k off

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Mar 7, 2017 - 12:10am PT

fixing the link

Bad Climber

Trad climber

The Lawless Border Regions

Mar 7, 2017 - 06:14am PT

Well said, Hoipolloi. I've rarely had the stomach for big runouts, so I've done very little climbing in the Meadows, even during my "storm years." I'll go do the first two pitches of Super Chicken, though! Looks super.

BAd

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Mar 7, 2017 - 09:53am PT

You must be physically and mentally strong

Nothing - except possibly espousing the notion climbing should entail risk - will identify you quicker as a never-was neanderthal than this statement. 'Modern' climbing long since left such throwbacks notions behind in the rearview mirror. And that's wrapped up in the fact trad climbers are really pussies who can't climb hard because they lack the willingness and discipline to train to climb hard. Or at least so I'm told again and again by sportos over on MP.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Mar 7, 2017 - 11:07am PT

the ego does get stroked by others finding the pitch/route "bad ass" and it lets one relive the hard(ish) man of our youth.

I never wanted the acceptance of the self-styled hardmen of Yose and their sometime narrow attitudes or pithy rectitude and get far more from the wide-eyed stoke of a newbie seeing the miracle of Yosemite for the first time on one of my routes.

I personally find these statements both overly broad-brush and generally lamentable. They don't in any way take into account lot's of people did and still do clean, onsight, ground-up FAs and take what they find on a line, go with their gut, and aren't in any way attempting to put up a 'hardman' ego-fest of a route. I personally could give a rats ass if an FA of mine every sees a second ascent and I don't climb for anyone else so I don't try to make routes easy or hard, risky or risk-free - I just climb them, go with my feelings and what happens happens.

I dunno, maybe I just am moving the goal posts for my own edification....who knows.

Well, to be honest, my experience has been that, way more often than not, people's ethics around bolting and retrobolting of their youth tend to evaporate and become quite convenient (and not so much for others as themselves). I know I'll quit climbing my FAs before I retrobolt any of them just so I can keep climbing them.

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Mar 7, 2017 - 01:53pm PT

5.7X? Its amazing the FAists creation has been shown respect for this long. With as much press as this has recieved here i wouldn't count on it not sprouting bolts in the near future.

A 150 miles north, the FAists creations recieved no such respect. I can count at least a half dozen of my BITD R/X routes on considerably more difficult terrain that have been reduced to sport clipups without any attempt at permission, sometimes even renamed and called new routes. Such is progress.

Jon Clark

climber

philadelphia

Mar 8, 2017 - 04:27am PT

But there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that many routes in Tuolumne were put up with the competitive spirit and ego of the FAers in mind for their edification and entertainment and to one up their bros, not out of some purist quest borne of Kamps', Higgins' or Bachar's seed. Fundamentally it was done to equal or surpass their forebears to claim a Hardman's piece of Yosemite history, a fully human thing to do.

I also absolutely buy into that people do their own routes for themselves and follow your ideals all the time, when they don't report the routes. I may in fact have done dozens of routes that meet that criteria, not telling more.

But as soon as you ask that it be remembered for all of the remainder of recorded climbing history in a commercially sold guide, or use that fame for sponsorship or sales marketing one ceases to be an ego-less purist climbing for oneself, imo.

As to whether you lament my sentimentality and desire to share it with those repeating my routes, means nothing to me. You got your climbing, I got mine. Personally, I find little of this life of value that can't be shared with another. You can't take it with you my friend, but the experience you had that day can be passed on and on and on.

Over on MP you're adamantly opposed to the addition of rap stations on The Nose. You argue, and I agree that it will increase access to less prepared parties and lead to even more congestion. But here you advocate for route modification in order to increase access to underprepared climbers. I find the notion that all climbs are to be available to all climbers to be nonsense. Besides, there are plenty of well protected options in TM for climbers of all abilities.

I find it condescending to reduce the efforts of those very skilled in a little practiced arena of climbing to the tired argument of ego driven affairs. Does ego drive and motivate climbers? Sure it can in varying degrees, but as the sole driver for their efforts? That's a gross oversimplification.

As to whether or not the third pitch of Super Chicken should have bolts added: Once you make the justification, it becomes easier to do so on other routes in the future. Where does it end?

Spiny Norman

Social climber

Boring, Oregon

Mar 8, 2017 - 04:59am PT

Aptly named route, it seems.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Mar 8, 2017 - 09:23am PT

5 years seems such a long time ago, sometimes...

Bryan's post is worth revisiting, and taking it at face value it is a statement about personal choice. The wording brings back another encounter on the Koven Couloir on Mt. Owens. My climbing partner Mike and a guy working for the Climber's Ranch had the notion we would do Mt. Owens in a day from the ranch.

This involved ascending most of the route 4th class, and in the Koven Couloir we encountered a party of two belaying up the snow/ice. As we passed them one said that they couldn't engage in our level of risk because he was married and had children. I replied that I was married with children and so was Mike, and said that everyone had a level of risk they were willing to take, it was an individual choice.

I don't know if my choice was justified or not. Apparently I survived my admittedly mild adventures so the risks may not have been as grave as they seem when you are in the middle of them, but I still believe that an important part of climbing is that you take full ownership of your choices.

Rick and Jim certainly did when they put up Super Chicken, and there are many other FAs that have posted here that fully embraced the risk to put up routes which, in their vision at the time, were worthy of the risk that was engaged. Those risks, in many cases, had consequences that were life threatening, and it is not dramatic to recognize that.

Personal choice is an important aspect of climbing. We don't have to climb, we choose to do it. And for the most part we would like to choose to do something with less risk than with more. At a certain level of accomplishment, a 5.7X lead is not such a big deal for someone, but it still entails risk.

It is not the responsibility of the FA to ensure that a climb they author will be climbable for every one who might want to climb it. What they can assume is that people who venture up on their climb have made a choice to do it, and that those people accept the inherent risks in so doing.

Not all climbs are for all climbers.

Learning to recognize when to back off a climb is an important, perhaps the most important skill a climber can develop. And accepting what your limitations are an equally important aspect of growing up.

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Mar 8, 2017 - 09:34am PT

Let's be clear....the FA's do not own a route just because they were the first to do it. A route should conform to the local ethical standards.
Rock climbing should serve up exciting fun but shouldn't be the way into a casket. If that's what you want I invite you to enter the world of extreme alpinism. No, I am not referring to routes in the Sierra..

G_Gnome

Trad climber

Cali

Mar 8, 2017 - 10:15am PT

Its funny how routes go sometimes when you are putting them up. Dave Hauser and I generally aimed to create routes that were safe and that everyone climbing at that ability could do, like Loose Lady and Chalk Up Another One in Josh. At the same time sometimes you just can't or don't want to stop and add a bolt and end up with a risky classic like EBGBs. Generally the ego involved was in how happy we were to get up the route and it did not involve how risky they were.

At the same time I was in the Meadows some during the Bachar era and saw how oneupsmanship lead to some of the horror fests on Medlicott. Again though, it wasn't so much about ego as it was about playing the game better than the other guy. And if you don't want to play 'that' game then stay off those kinds of routes.

Cragar

climber

MSLA - MT

Mar 8, 2017 - 10:31am PT

And if you don't want to play 'that' game then stay off those kinds of routes.

I can't argue with that, maybe some can? My first partners from Sonora took me to the Meadows and man, I fell in love. Not only the beauty of the place, but how heady pitches were or could be if I would try. Never did anything hard as I moved away a couple years later and maybe I wouldn't have been able to do anything remotely hard? Don't know. But I do know that it is up to you to bring yourself up or just stay off. Have some respect and learn to grow yourself up, pun intended.

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Mar 8, 2017 - 02:21pm PT

The Bachar/Yerian is one thing a 5.7 totally unprotected pitch can be quite another. When John led the B/Y he showcased his skills in putting up a testpiece that has stood the test of time. If an excellent climber puts up an unprotected easy pitch that was a walk in the park for him and refuses to allow retro bolying he/she is doing a disservice to climbers at a lower pay grade.
I'm not saying that applies in this case....I am just introducing a hypothetical. Years ago Jim Erickson put up a fabulous and exremely bold route in Eldo. The route is 5.9+, a grade Jim could have easily onsight soloed. He graciously allowed a couple of bolts to be added....it is now a wonderful, still spicy, climb that is available to climbers whose names are not Jim Erickson.
I think that most of you know that I have done many climbs that are very thought provoking. I find the mental part of climbing to be as important and rewarding as the physical components.
I also feel that moderate climbs put up with little or no gear by talented climbers are not bold in the sense that they were not challenging for them.
A 5.7 totally unprotected pitch for some climbers will cause no pause and will not be a mental or physical challenge. That same pitch for many others, with the addition of a few strategic bolts, will present a mental challenge that will be a memorable experience for them without fear of death or serious injury.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 8, 2017 - 03:37pm PT

Oh what a pile.

So, the FAs do not own the route, but some "majority" or "community" do? The FAs don't get to decide style or ethics (as if there even is such a thing!), but the "majority" or "community" do?

And in a national park like Yosemite, just WHO are the "locals" that are establishing "local ethical standards"? Good luck with those definitions. You're just babbling nonsense here. If the FAs don't DEFINE what the route is, then nobody does. Or, on the other hand, if everybody defines what the route is, then, really, there IS only the lowest common-denominator, and ALL "routes" should just become ADA-compliant escalators. Yayyy... everything accessible to the masses (of obese, risk-averse types).

Then you build on the nonsense with this gem: "Rock climbing should serve up exciting fun but shouldn't be the way into a casket." Says who? That's just an opinion, and it's one that actually threatens what differentiates rock-climbing from gymnastics. What is "exciting fun" that has no risk (or just the "right amount" of risk)? Go take a walk in the park. Be sorely accosted by the evil pidgins! That's some "exciting fun." Give me a break!

GREAT climbing can occur on 5.0 or 5.15, or even A-something-or-other. Once a particular sort of experience has been established by the FAs, how about just leave it that way? Then, people can decide whether or not they want to seek that particular experience. If not, they can go elsewhere, like the tens of thousands of other climbs that will be right up their alley.

But the best line was the one that compelled me to respond: "If that's what you want I invite you to enter the world of extreme alpinism. No, I am not referring to routes in the Sierra."

Ahhhh... I see now. NO 5.7 in Yosemite can be "worthy" of being "risky." In fact, NOTHING in Yosemite (or the Sierra) can be "worthy" of being "risky," because the ONLY places people SHOULD take risks are places that "matter," like the places YOU'VE climbed. (Surprise, surprise.) ONLY your risks are properly worthy and awesome.

What a steaming pile of narrow-minded, elitist snake-droppings.

Personally I applaud the OP for his commitment to the standard that drives ALL real climbing, and who thereby left behind a rarity in climbing: Something at a generally-approachable grade that requires one to really think: "Do I feel lucky? Do I feel solid?" And then the self-assessment is ON! The fact that there's a route at 5.7 where that inner assessment can take place is awesome! Leave it alone! Don't turn it into just another "R" that is "sporty" without being really in your face. There IS a place for REAL risk at all grades, not just in the realm of "extreme alpinism." And here's one that gets it done.

There are "styles" aplenty, so nobody is going to be lacking "R" or easier 5.7s to do. How about let's respect this one in particular for what it IS rather than turn it into yet another common-denominator?

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Mar 8, 2017 - 03:43pm PT

Don't take what I said out of context and work on your reading comprehension.....over and out.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 8, 2017 - 04:01pm PT

Don't take what I said out of context and work on your reading comprehension

I took it IN context. I quoted almost your entire post. And there's no denying the elitist, "Only my risk-taking is worthy" crap.

If my reading comprehension is so bad, then you can explain your argument that literally says, "This 5.7 is not a worthy place to take a real risk, because ONLY extreme alpinism is." Tell us all what I'm missing.

My rebuttal is that ANY place an FAist takes the risk, it's worthy! And it's worthy of being left in that condition, because there are precious few like it! If some FAist is content to have retro-bolts added, so what? YOU said, the FAist doesn't own the route, so why does s/he get to decide? Incoherent. Not all routes are for all people in all times. That's a simple, coherent principle that's easy to "enforce." Just leave FAs in their existing character, and you're done. How simple is that?

YOUR way lies the madness of Woot-boy, and almost everybody on this site decries his unilateral dumbing-down of existing routes.

There IS no "slippery slope." There is only: Leave FAs in their existing character, or there is the "bottom" of the slope Woot-boy has shown us. And your "extreme alpinism" elitism fails to explicate.

G_Gnome

Trad climber

Cali

Mar 8, 2017 - 04:05pm PT

Sorry Jim but Louie read your posts exactly the same way I did and had the same reaction. Maybe you should reply in a meaningful way if that is not really what you meant.

rmuir

Social climber

From the Time Before the Rocks Cooled.

Mar 8, 2017 - 04:36pm PT

the FA's do not own a route just because they were the first to do it.

As has been argued before, FA parties DO own the route. They don't own the rock or the formation, they own the ROUTE.

The route is an abstraction that is imposed on the mountain by the FA party. It is a creation as much as a painting created by an artist. I submit that the FA party, and they alone, may dictate how route may be altered.

If Rick and Wild Jim believe that extra bolts are appropriate (or not), no one else is better suited to make that decision.

August West

Trad climber

Where the wind blows strange

Mar 8, 2017 - 04:38pm PT

I personally could give a rats ass if an FA of mine every sees a second ascent and I don't climb for anyone else so I don't try to make routes easy or hard, risky or risk-free - I just climb them, go with my feelings and what happens happens.

So if you get your jollies on the FA, it matters not a whit if anyone else ever enjoys that climb. Bully for you.

If you get yours during the FA and don't care about any other climbers, should it matter then if someone else does the climb by adding bolts?

Or is that you really do care about other people climbing your routes?

WBraun

climber

Mar 8, 2017 - 05:18pm PT

Kevin that super chicken 3rd pitch is nothing.

I'm the worst face climber and I free soloed the whole route onsite.

Ask Accamazo, Kauk or yourself to verify how shitty I am at face climbing ...

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 8, 2017 - 06:11pm PT

I think Western Civilization can withstand the assault.

Then, why are you on this thread? It doesn't matter, after all. Only elite alpinism matters, after all.

Reading what you said upthread, I thought that I was in agreement with you. But, as I've learned on other threads, you just like to fight with me, so you'll find a fight where there is none.

So, my perpetual response to you now is identifying your classic MD syndrome: Often wrong; never uncertain.

None of this matters, so I think that Western Civilization is going to go where it goes (namely: into oblivion) regardless. Entropy always gets its man!

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Mar 8, 2017 - 06:12pm PT

I was not replying directly to the Suoer Chicken situation. My point is merely this.....everyone is talking about the sanctity of the FA and how if you aren't ready for a climb don't get on it. That I believe is true about routes like the B/Y. HOWEVER......if an easy route (read 5.7) is put up by a superior climber with no pro that does not mean that an average climber should be denied climbing it.
The superior climber had the same experience on it that an average climber might have on a Class 4 climb. What I presented was a hypothetical it had nothing to do with Super Chicken. How MadBolter could call that an elitist attitude is totally beyond me.
Madbolter.....I don't know you and given the overall tenor of your posts these past few years I certainly don't want to make the effort to change that.

gunsmoke

Mountain climber

Clackamas, Oregon

Mar 8, 2017 - 06:54pm PT

If there were but one route of each grade on this planet, a reasonable case could be made for the notion that each route should be accessible to the masses. Of course, such is not the case. All of us can find countless non-stressful climbs, if that’s what we crave, at any grade we are capable of climbing. I do many non-stressful climbs, but those are not what I crave. Once you decide that the FA party doesn’t have the creative control of their route, then climbs, taken as a whole, trend toward the lowest common denominator. To me, the lowest common denominator is not what climbing is about.

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Mar 8, 2017 - 07:10pm PT

I also don't believe that the lowest common denominator isn't what climbing is about....check my record. I simply am trying to point out that when a 5.13 climber put up a route and doesn't protect a 5.7 pitch it's not because he/she is bold and wants to keep the climb real...it's because the pitch is as simple as walking down the sidewalk and chewing gum at the same time. Why should such a climb remain unavailable to an average climber who would truly appreciate it?
As to my reference to extreme alpinism, I wasn't trying to be elitist, I was pointing out that there are segments of climbing that are replete with objective dangers (avalanches, rockfall, bad weather) that cannot be avoided. Entering that world is up to the individual. Ordinary rock climbers on easy routes under a blue California sky shouldn't be subjected to arbitrary danger because the expert first asenscionist didn't need protection. Over and OUT!

gunsmoke

Mountain climber

Clackamas, Oregon

Mar 8, 2017 - 07:32pm PT

I simply am trying to point out that when a 5.13 climber put up a route and doesn't protect a 5.7 pitch it's not because he/she is bold and wants to keep the climb real...it's because the pitch is as simple as walking down the sidewalk and chewing gum at the same time. Why should such a climb remain unavailable to an average climber who would truly appreciate it?

Most any policy, procedure, or agreement, when applied broadly, creates certain applications that are subject to legitimate criticism. The fact of finding such examples doesn't prove the appropriateness of tossing the policy. In this case, throwing the doors open to bolting every climb that someone finds spicy is a wrong response.

Second, your argument leads to the notion that some run-out 5.7's must stay run-out because the FA was gripped, while other 5.7's should be bolted because the FA wasn't gripped. Is that really what we want? "Nope, can't Sloan that route, the FA wasn't doing 5.10 leads when it was put up."

Third, who is going to determine when it was a 5.13 climber who didn't protect because he didn't feel a need? No one. Instead, everyone will bolt anything with regard to nothing more than their comfort level.

Fourth, many run-out classics that average climbers seek out are run-out because the FA team was too strong to need many bolts. An obvious exemplar: Snake Dike. I hope that your bolting philosophy never finds it way to such climbs.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 8, 2017 - 08:23pm PT

HOWEVER......if an easy route (read 5.7) is put up by a superior climber with no pro that does not mean that an average climber should be denied climbing it.

No. That's exactly what it means. There are tons and tons of routes that an "average climber" can go do. But when the "average climber" wants to push his/her limits, there SHOULD be routes that s/he can test all aspects of his/her limits. This is a unique route, and even as a hypothetical, it makes the case FOR leaving routes alone, so that they can be experienced by whatever subset of climbers want that experience.

The superior climber had the same experience on it that an average climber might have on a Class 4 climb. What I presented was a hypothetical it had nothing to do with Super Chicken.

Maybe. Maybe not. You don't know. I've done lots of 5.10+ free-soloing BITD, including on slabs. And my hands were sweating reading the FA account. It's pretty elitist of you to assume what the experience of the FA team was or what would be the experience of, say, a 5.10 climber who wanted to start free-soloing at the 5.7 level. You just don't know.

How MadBolter could call that an elitist attitude is totally beyond me.

Oh, okay. Let me help you out. It's pretty simple, really.

See, when you say, "Nobody should risk their life ANYWHERE in the Sierra," and, "If you want to start doing life-risking things, the only place for you is in serious alpinism," (which, of course, you count yourself as a paradigm example of), then it IS ELITIST in the extreme.

What would you think of me if I started saying things like, "Unless you are doing micro-flake hooking, you are not doing any serious aid." Or, "Until you've done MY sort of climbing, you don't know what 'risk' is."

But you perpetually pop-off with just those sorts of comments.

So, hopefully now it's no longer "beyond you" how I (and others) can read your "elite alpinism" screed as elitist (and, frankly, entirely wrong-headed).

Madbolter.....I don't know you and given the overall tenor of your posts these past few years I certainly don't want to make the effort to change that.

Trust me, your one post about making snide comments at the base of El Cap watching a noob team struggle is enough to make that feeling mutual!

Get over yourself.

You've done some hard stuff. So have I. So have MANY others. And your stuff is no more awesome, seriously, than a first-time 5.8 leader way run-out, shaking, mentally-maxed, but keeping it together and pulling the lead off! THAT is the essence of climbing, and I respect THAT, whether it's that first run-out 5.8 lead, run-out micro-flake hooking, Patagonia, K2, or a HOST of other mental-tests where people go WAY outside their comfort-zone and thereby gain a deeper knowledge of WHAT they are.

I DON'T respect your repeated innuendos and flat-out inferences to the effect that ONLY the sort of stuff you've done is really respectable. If you don't actually believe that about yourself, then it's sure strange how often that's what you've effectively said, like just upthread.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 8, 2017 - 08:28pm PT

As to my reference to extreme alpinism, I wasn't trying to be elitist, I was pointing out that there are segments of climbing that are replete with objective dangers (avalanches, rockfall, bad weather) that cannot be avoided.

I'm boggled! SURE they can be avoided. Just don't go into that environment!

Entering that world is up to the individual.

But, somehow, that's NOT the case on the run-out 5.7?

Ordinary rock climbers on easy routes under a blue California sky shouldn't be subjected to arbitrary danger because the expert first asenscionist didn't need protection.

Nobody is "subjected" to such a thing. They have the EXACT same choice as the alpinist to enter that environment. If anything, the "arbitrary danger" IS in mountaineering, where you can die through no fault and no choice of your own (other than being there in the first place). The dangers in rock-climbing are FAR more chosen than arbitrary.

So, it makes FAR more sense to risk it all in rock-climbing, where at least you have a good shot at detecting and coping with the dangers you are actually facing.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Mar 8, 2017 - 08:57pm PT

No I don't care if anyone else climbs a route I do. And the reality is 'other climbers' don't enter into the equation at all when I'm climbing. Hell, I barely matter once I leave the ground as I explicitly strive to get out of my head as fast as humanly possible and just 'go with the flow'. And I have to say that, in this day and age of mostly manufactured climbs, it almost seems as if people no longer 'get' almost any aspect of the experience of doing groundup, onsight FAs and just dealing with whatever you find as you come to it. I personally find that truly lamentable and hardly what I'd call 'progress'; if anything, I consider it a significant regression in 'modern' climbing.

What I do care about is my FAs not be retrobolted - i.e. if they don't want to climb it the way it is they should simply move on. Again, I don't try to put up easy or hard, safe or X-rated routes - I don't in any way even think like that. I just get obsessed with a line and try to do it in as clean and as 'honestly' [to my style] as possible. And while some FAs I've done are R or R/X, I'm not a bold person, but rather I simply dealt with what I found as best I could. Also in that regard, I've never put up a route that was R or R/X that I haven't led multiple if not many multiple times.

If I was ever so scared of my own route that I wouldn't climb it again then I can assure you I would 'fix it' in some fashion or another, but so far that has never occurred. In forty-three years of climbing I've installed one protection bolt on an FA of mine and that was in lieu of a double 1# Loweball placement I used on the FA. I did it after my FA partner observed no one else would likely ever have two of those or think to use them there. I deferred to her in that case, but it is still an R/X lead even with that bolt due to the combined technical nature of both the pro and moves (I've also lead the route many dozens of times since).

P.S. Jim, have to say that I also thought that post came off as fairly elitist. I get that your pallet ranges far and wide and includes both rock and remote alpine climbing, but - while getting your 5.13 / 5.7 point - I find the assertion that the world of domestic rock climbing should be reduced to relatively risk-free entertainment somewhat disenchanting, if not disappointing (though certainly not out of step with these 'modern' times).

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 8, 2017 - 09:36pm PT

Last I checked, the survival rate of people successfully summitting K2 was 23%....that means that 23 of the people out of 100 that have climbed the thing have never come down alive....

No, I think you mean "the fatality rate" rather than the "survival rate."

Often wrong; never uncertain.

The important point is that people should have the opportunity to push their limits, even if they may pay the ultimate price trying. Most people will never have the resources necessary to mount a trip to K2 or Patagonia. So, because most climbers can't even get into the environment to take "the ultimate risk," somehow that means that every 5.7 must be "safe"?

I seriously don't follow the argument.

It's a simple principle: Leave existing routes in the same character as the FA. And the beauty of the principle is that it's a "negative" principle: You perfectly satisfy it by doing NOTHING! Just DON'T do anything to "fix" existing routes to your "standard," and you'll have "done" plenty.

If I was ever so scared of my own route that I wouldn't climb it again then I can assure you I would 'fix it' in some fashion or another, but so far that has never occurred.

Joe, I've FA-ed various routes that I would never want to repeat. Yet, I'm glad I did them once. So, are you saying that I'm duty-bound to go back and "fix" them? Or should I applaud Woot-boy to go do that for me?

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Mar 8, 2017 - 09:39pm PT

And, Joe, I've FA-ed various routes that I would never want to repeat. Yet, I'm glad I did them once. So, are you saying that I'm duty-bound to go back and "fix" them? Or should I applaud Woot-boy to go do that for me?

I'm me, you're you, what you decide for your FAs is your business, not mine. Again, I don't mind not getting up other people's routes, but I loathe not being able (or willing) to get up my own. As I said, never happened to me so far. YMMV.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Mar 8, 2017 - 09:46pm PT

5 years later and only Ed H has been up there to report, took a picture of that sweet pitch but didn't choose to do it that day.

And no one else here, passionate posts not withstanding, have been up there and done the pitch.

More doing, less talking...

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Mar 8, 2017 - 09:49pm PT

I dunno, if I were a local, I would likely go have a look. I'm not so I talk on ST and do my doing where I do.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Mar 8, 2017 - 09:51pm PT

...not necessarily about that one pitch on that one route... just in general...

I'm sure there are other climbs in other areas like it.

Pete Hill

Social climber

Squamish

Mar 8, 2017 - 11:21pm PT

Add bolts and see an amazing pitch get climbed. Where you are in your youth should not be the measure of your acquired judgement for all time.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Mar 9, 2017 - 01:09am PT

Or don't clip the bolts

This is and has always been the weakest and most pathetic of all the conceivable arguments for retrobolting.

Add bolts and see an amazing pitch get climbed. Where you are in your youth should not be the measure of your acquired judgement for all time.

In my experience, nine times out of ten "acquired judgment" is simply a euphemism for someone hitting thirty-two with a job, wife, kids and bigger waist or is now middle-aged or beyond - either way they no longer have the goods or wherewithal to do a route the way they did it when they were younger. Acknowledge and accept that reality and either do something about yourself or don't - but don't add bolts. Personally, I find that embarrassing and both disrespectful of your earlier self and everyone who has led the route in the meantime. The other excuse - wanting to share a great route - I find an equally weak cover for said realities.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 9, 2017 - 05:38am PT

Add bolts and see an amazing pitch get climbed.

Add bolts and see a unique pitch become just another 5.7, like the millions that are already available.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 9, 2017 - 05:39am PT

I'm me, you're you, what you decide for your FAs is your business, not mine.

Cooth! That's what I believed you'd say and what I hoped you'd say.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 9, 2017 - 05:41am PT

No one ever said every 5.7 should be safe. You are putting words in people's mouths to make your own arguments that they never posted.

Actually, some people are now slowly backing away from arguments that weren't sustainable in the first place.

And every single rock climb on Earth can be done as "X". Just leave your rope on the ground, can't you?

Ridiculous. Not worth a response other than to just say: Ridiculous.

The argument that doesn't make sense is that somehow the adventure of a climb is lost forever because a bolt was added to make the falling leader only maybe killed rather than certainly killed. How the f*#k is this true?

The fact that you need this explained to you means that it can never be explained to you.

Just leave existing routes in their FA character. End of story.

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Mar 9, 2017 - 05:52am PT

Leave existing routes in there FA character eh. Let's extend that concept a bit....I have some FA's in Yosemite from the 70's that I would dearly love to see you styling in the FA character.....read, no cams.

mooch

Trad climber

Tribal Base Camp (Kernville Annex)

Mar 9, 2017 - 07:45am PT

Since you chimed in ec (4 years ago on this threwad ;), I would hope you would go back to replace that bolt on 'Strange Brew' at The Needles! Having done the second pitch (5.8), the one and only bolt to that pitch......was no where to be seen!! And the so-called knob tie-offs low on the pitch are down right useless. They are both small and rounded. Imagine looking down 100ft, while you're in search for this lone old 1/4" bolt and you see that both of your "psychological" tie offs are GONE! and have slid down to your belayer.....which, at this point, is completely useless. I scanned for several minutes and never found it. 5.8X, on a seldom done route, can really magify the senses!! I saw Kris put a note in the new guidebook about the bolt I mentioned being gone. Maybe you and I can get out there and replace it. And with your permission, add 1 or 2 down lower to supplement the "ghost" pro. I'd pony up the bolt/bolts. Sorry......didn't mean to threas drift. Just was an eye opening experience. :)

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Mar 9, 2017 - 07:59am PT

Talk, talk, talk.

Lets just pass the cup for funds to pay someone to bolt this puppy.

mooch

Trad climber

Tribal Base Camp (Kernville Annex)

Mar 9, 2017 - 08:17am PT

Sure. Let's get the Americans Climbing Safe Association involved. Wait.....the Safe Association of Ameicans Climbing may just do it for FREE.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Mar 9, 2017 - 09:24am PT

Really, so Werner's...

We're not talking free soloing which is a cat of an altogether different color.

And the second weakest and most pathetic argument for retrobolting it comparing bolting to broader environmental or infrastructure aspects of industrialized societies. If you can't make your case within the scope of climbing itself you simply don't have an argument.

G_Gnome

Trad climber

Cali

Mar 9, 2017 - 09:56am PT

And desecration of the rock is NOT the issue, desecration of the created route is.

guyman

Social climber

Moorpark, CA.

Mar 9, 2017 - 09:57am PT

Heck ... The last time I saw Wild Jim Wilson, last year at the GYM, he gave me permission to go and bolt that sucker. As long as it was me bolting on the lead....

jess saying.

G_Gnome

Trad climber

Cali

Mar 9, 2017 - 01:10pm PT

Tut, I agree that Ricky can do whatever he wants to his route so long as his partner agrees. But the question was 'should he' and No, he shouldn't for all the reasons laid out above. But if he wants to now 'share' his route with more people, or wants to climb it again but no longer has the skills to do so, then bolt away. But it isn't like he should do it to make it safe.

gunsmoke

Mountain climber

Clackamas, Oregon

Mar 9, 2017 - 01:59pm PT

It doesn't even have to be safe, ever. I just support his original desire to make it not deadly.

Getting evac-ed is ok. Getting killed isn't. Got it.

mooch

Trad climber

Tribal Base Camp (Kernville Annex)

Mar 9, 2017 - 02:06pm PT

If the man wants to "touch-up" his Mona Lisa, let 'em. TM isn't a "paint-by-numbers" area like Riverside Garbage Dump is.....

gunsmoke

Mountain climber

Clackamas, Oregon

Mar 9, 2017 - 02:46pm PT

I don't think anyone is telling the FA that they can't do a "touch up."

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Mar 9, 2017 - 06:03pm PT

Surprised this is getting rehashed.....

For me, Rick Acommazzo was the name of the slab game when I got into it. He, more then all the rest, climbed face in the style I aspired to...He helped invent hard slab in a style that is still largely unsurpassed and sadly is fading from the climbing radar: That of a quiet (I didn't get the ego hit from past history) person (used 'person' for DMT) climbing ground up, drilling from the most hideous aid less stances (think about it the next time you stand in the "hole" on GBG on Royal Arches Apron and clip the bolt. Let go with two hands when you do it.), and acquiring the skill, both mentally and physically to put up some of the most beautiful slab/face climbs in history under a wonderful ethos. One where he used his skill not to one up his fellow climber but to push his personal limits for adventure and, at the same time, respecting the rock. He covered these aspects in his nicely written OP. And TM holds this style of climbing above all else. It's why I go back year after year.

I think the Chicken is unique and is being singled out because the first two pitches offer safe accessibility to the many while the top two pitches do not. There are not that many climbs in TM of this nature although there are certainly numerous 5.7x pitches. The top out of Black Bart (ya, the one where it says "4th class"), the first pitch of Rawl Drive now that the added retro bolt has been removed and many others. But those climbs are never done because all of the parts are serious. And tell me of a like Rick Accommazzo route with an ease equal to any of the Chicken in TM? Guardians of the Galaxy surely is not it! Climbed also with Jim Wilson. So the Chicken maybe unique to him and I can see why it's hard not to open up the whole thing. To let others not up to the original intent, experience some of that genius......and ethos. But there in lies the rub.....for to bolt it would erase all that.

He is as large a reason as any as to why I still play that lovely game he helped create and why I hope he doesn't change the Chicken.

As to less talk: I'm surprised to learn that old bolts still exist? Ed? One of my favorite past times was to lead then replace old climbs that weren't easily accessible. Stopped due to wanting my own adventures. But not much work if the original line stays. If there's still old bolts because they're hard, for whatever reason, to get to (surprised Clint and the gang hasn't gone there. Maybe they're waiting on a final decision?), I'd be happy to replace with ASCA gear. They would supply only replacement bolts and not retro.

Edit: I've never climbed it so, if the old line stays, I'd be happy to re-bolt. But If RA wants to retro, I'll never climb it. Skipping bolts is not the same.......

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Mar 9, 2017 - 07:13pm PT

I don't recall if the p3 anchors are "new" bolts, I'm pretty sure they weren't 1970s vintage, and I thought Greg said that he had replaced those bolts on some ASCA expedition up there.

I certainly left the bolt kit in the car on that outing...

Greg Barnes

climber

Mar 9, 2017 - 07:44pm PT

Karin Wuhrmann and I replaced the third pitch anchor in 2003, I'd replaced the first pitch in '99 with a guy from an AAC gathering with an ancient rack (although I think there was one good/modern bolt at the anchor already? I'd have to go check my notes - the pro bolt was definitely a sketchy 1/4" with a spinning homemade hanger).

We approached from above after replacing Chicken Little (so not super far above, you can wander around up in those upper pitches pretty easily). We actually climbed the first two pitches of Super Chicken then cut left to the ledge which is even with the start of the third pitch (maybe 20' up then left), that's how we fixed the line to work on Chicken Little.

After we replaced that 3rd pitch anchor we continued up, I remember a super fun jug haul knob pitch up high up there, but it was optional, not the easiest path (e.g. 5.7 jug knobs instead of taking 5.0 crack/ramp)...the cracks up there tend to be a bit vegetated.

The upper pitches of Chicken Little (off that ledge) were kind of sketchy, not steep but a fair bit of laybacking with not much pro and a lot of lichen.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 9, 2017 - 08:07pm PT

I have some FA's in Yosemite from the 70's that I would dearly love to see you styling in the FA character.....read, no cams.

It's tragic seeing you on the wrong side of this, being intentionally obtuse, just because you're miffed to have been called out on your elitism. Pity. You're in with strange bedfellows now!

You know the argument I'm making, and you've done climbs that I'm sure you don't think should be made ADA-compliant. But, because I pissed you off, you now just want to fight in the most ridiculous way.

You KNOW that cams vs. no-cams is entirely irrelevant to a discussion regarding the PERMANENT alteration of an existing route to dumb it down to some arbitrary level of "fun" or "accessibility."

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 9, 2017 - 08:28pm PT

What about non-clean aid climbing?

Is that acceptable? How many once proud A5s are now lowly A2s?

Now, to my mind, THIS is a much more substantive consideration.

I do believe that we've got a consensus that clean is better wherever possible, as it halts the progress of permanent rock-alteration. As technology allows a given section to be done clean, it is better to do it clean.

Our present example, however, would be more like an aid route that originally went clean, has been repeatedly climbed clean, and then a significant proportion of the climbing community start moaning and wringing its hands: "It's too dangerous clean! People can get hurt or even killed doing it clean. It needs pitons and maybe bolts as well."

That's a better analogy in the aid realm.

Furthermore, A5 classics like, say, the Sea of Dreams, did not get dumbed down via more and more pitons. The Sea got dumbed down via flat-out drilling!

I led the Hook or Book pitch the fifth time it was ever done, and it was gripping. The middle portion of the pitch had a single #2 head in a shallow, NATURAL seam. I hated the sight of it. But I clipped it and moved on.

During Ring of Fire, Mark and I fixed ropes for a couple of pitches above Continental Shelf and our lines ran right over that exact spot. Several times rapping and jugging I marveled at how festooned in CRAP that spot was by then!

Instead of ONE natural head, there were at least half-a-dozen, all deeply and hugely trenched. So, Hook or Book got taken (by people that clearly had NO business being ON that pitch) from a real heads-up pitch to what amounts to several bolts worth of hardware drilled into it at a crucial spot.

The people doing all that trenching had NO business there. The minute you're pulling out the drill to make that FIRST trench where there was none before, you HAVE to realize that you have failed. So, now, having failed, what do you do?

IMO, you have ONE legitimate non-drilling option: You lower back to the Shelf from that upper rivet, and you pull your rope through your gear, calling that gear a sacrifice for not dying and NEITHER dumbing a route of that magnitude down to your level. Either stand on the one natural head, or get out of there. What you DON'T do is trench a new protection head.

But, obviously, multiple losers couldn't be content with even one HUGE trenched head! They had to add more. And more.

When you're on A5, you should be prepared to die. That's what A5 implies. If you find at the crucial moment that you don't have the huevos, you get out of there by any means that doesn't permanently alter the route.

But, really, there's nothing more to talk about on this thread. Too many here have adopted the pansy-a55ed, nanny-state mentality: Make it safe. Give me a safety net. NOBODY should have to endure the consequences of their decisions. We'll just dumb it down to the lowest common denominator and call everybody a "winner."

And when the likes of Jim Donini are in bed with this pathetic mentality, I'm just too discouraged to keep up the fight.

Alllllllrighty then. Bye bye now.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Mar 9, 2017 - 08:34pm PT

high dudgeon on a thread about a ~100' 5.7X pitch..

maybe a bit of perspective?

it's sort of why I decided I'd go give it a spin, there are still very few posters here who have been up there and done the route. So whether or not it should be re-equipped is speculation for most of the posters here.

wstmrnclmr

Trad climber

Bolinas, CA

Mar 9, 2017 - 08:35pm PT

Aww Greg! I should have guessed! You've been gone and I forget all the great hard work you've done! The Chicken was/has always been popular so never really interested me but if the rock's as good as the few say.....We miss you in TM....

WBraun

climber

Mar 9, 2017 - 08:55pm PT

The minute you're trenching heads means there's nothing there anymore and you've crossed the line.

Of course, everyone's line is moved at will all over the place.

The more you trench heads on a pitch the more the line is not giving.

When the line stops giving and one starts trenching heads you've entered stooopid ......

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Mar 10, 2017 - 01:40am PT

I have some FA's in Yosemite from the 70's that I would dearly love to see you styling in the FA character.....read, no cams.

I've been arguing for years that we need to enact a 'National Cam-Free Day' so kids can get 'hands-on' insights and understanding into their history, heritage and the evolution of their sport. Hell, it's fun! It's easy! Just leave those cams at home for a day and go climb a classic line or two at your nearest crag. Think about it! History is right there in your grasp for the taking!

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 10, 2017 - 08:35am PT

people have the right to be disrespectful

Thank you for the post.

Yes, they have the right. But when they exercise it, it's not worthy of respect or emulation.

healyje

Trad climber

Portland, Oregon

Mar 10, 2017 - 08:59am PT

Ideologues only have the power of their voice. If you chose not to listen their walls of text are meaningless. Every person who ever climbs that route gets to decide anew, once more, just as the FA did... to bolt or not.

More skeptical commentary from our other staunchly post-modernist ST'er.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 10, 2017 - 09:25am PT

Remember Kev, we are only beating this mule because they both at one time or another have considered adding some bolts to this pitch in question themselves.

Not true. That's how this thread started. But it quickly turned into a discussion of retro-bolting in general, with you yourself making sweeping statements about making routes safe and accessible.

For my part, I'm arguing against such general assertions, because I don't want to see Woot-boy's perspectives get the SLIGHTEST respect or affirmation.

If the FA team decides to retro-bolt their own route (which implies an "ownership" that most here don't agree with), that's a pity, imo. But even that's a FAR cry for the sort of sweeping encouragements of retro-bolting that you yourself have offered. And if the FA team doesn't "own" the route, then even they should not get a pass to retro-bolt it.

Don't worry. I sleep just fine. But I'll also devote some time now and then to decry the endless dumbing-down, "everybody's a winner" crap.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 10, 2017 - 10:23am PT

Who knew you two were flip-sides of the same coin?

Now, that's a LOW blow and unjustified. LOL

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 10, 2017 - 11:44am PT

Well now, that is something for you to think about, isn't it?

No, actually it's not. It's absurd and obviously so.

I find "arguing" with you tedious and worthless. I won't acknowledge you in the future. You just love to argue, and your "arguments" are always moving targets. Just a waste of time.

There's a simple principle here: Don't make permanent alterations to the character of existing routes to make the "safe" or "accessible." It's been a respected and acknowledged principle for too many decades to count, and that's because it preserves the core value that motivates climbing itself.

However, there's a growing body of "climbers" that don't acknowledge or outright deny either the core value nor the principle that preserves it. You yourself have repeatedly and on multiple threads advocated for this "safety" and dumbing down.

I'm not going to allow the Woot-boys of the climbing community to believe that they enjoy sweeping respect and approbation, because their perspective is neither respectable nor worthy of respect. And there are MANY of us that see this "movement" for what it is.

I have NO interest in "enforcing" anything. People are going to do whatever they wish, and there's no "law" about it. I personally don't care what happens to "my" FAs at this point. But, neither am I going to applaud the Woot-boy movement; instead, I will decry it as lame, weak, pathetic, and not worthy of any respect.

You remain: Often wrong; never uncertain. I'm done with you.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 10, 2017 - 07:56pm PT

I tried....

I've tried too.

I've said that I don't give a rip what happens to WoS or any other route in the specific. That's not what my perspective is about.

But when you start equating my perspective with that of "persecutor" or equate what I'm saying here with slander in the face of piles of objective evidence, you've totally lost me, and I don't see "trying" in that sort of absurdity.

What Grossman and I do have in common is a genuine belief in some core principles that we believe define what climbing is. Now, you'll immediately say, "Well, yes, for YOU," thereby relativizing the statement. I'll return to that in a moment.

Where Grossman and I part company is, I believe, not regarding the principles themselves but upon his (at least past) perspectives about how to "prosecute" those that he thinks are not abiding by them.

I have zero interest in "punishing" the likes of Woot-boy. I have publicly decried and tried to dissuade those who have strongly advocated for kicking his a55 until he stops! I have NEVER defamed him. I have referred directly to his OWN statements on threads he himself has frequented, and I have told him that I disrespect the tactics HE HIMSELF has said that he employs and the principles by which he decides to employ them. If you can equate that approach in ANY way with the sort of tactics employed by Grossman regarding WoS, then that is flatly absurd.

Same thing with "Look Out! Weak Sauce!" I went there. I did the route. I reported on what I found. I reduced the total hole-count by about 2/3. And I decried the tactics employed by the FA team and the obviously sponsorship-motivated hype surrounding that botch job. Here's why....

If the FA team had said to the world, "Hey, we just put a bashie ladder all the way up the Titan. We drilled a big bashie hole every eighteen inches, because we didn't want to leave the third or fourth step of our aiders. We then jerked most of our bashies back out, blowing open the holes into almost useless flairs. We don't even rate the route because it's almost entirely one drilled hole after another. But, if you're into redrilling hundreds of holes to do your own bashie ladder, it's a 'fun' route!" Hey, in that event, I'd just shake my head and think TO MYSELF, "Wow. Okay. To each his own, I guess. But I don't think it's 'climbing,' and I don't respect it."

But, no. They claim an A6+ rating, hype it as the hardest thing ever done in the world, and claim that they set an entirely new standard of what "climbing" even means. THEN when the observed and documented truth comes THAT wildly apart from the hype, yes, I've publicly expressed my disappointment and even disdain for the hype and ridiculousness of the whole enterprise. Again, that bears zero correlation with what happened surrounding WoS.

So, I would say that as far as I can tell, I totally agree with Grossman's ideas regarding what "climbing" really means. But I part company regarding tactics of "enforcement" and the willingness to ignore evidence or even do the route to which I'm referring.

Yes, you lost me at the point of your superficial comparison. And my angst about Woot-boy and his tactics (that are more and more accepted and even applauded) has exactly zero to do with "What will become of my routes?" I honestly don't care about that. I don't need idols there in perpetuity to make me feel "awesome" or anything like that. I've got a good life, a wonderful, beautiful wife who loves me, and I sleep well at night.

That said, I do believe in some objectivity regarding what "climbing" implies, so I do bridle at this perpetual relativization.

You can DO whatever you want, and you can CALL it "climbing" all you want, in the same way that modern artists can draw a single broken line on a white canvas, entitle that "masterpiece" something like "Dead Snake On Road," and call it "art," as if they are doing "the same thing" in principle as, say, Rembrandt. But there is an objectivity to art as well: Some is "better," and some is "worse." Some "efforts" don't even rise to the level of being "art" at all. There is more to art than "making a statement." And there is more to "climbing" than "moving upward."

I don't expect to convince any of you in that brief paragraph. It would take its own WoT to even START the arguments needed, and most of you would doze off. In that sense, these "discussions" are futile, because they cannot really be rigorous.

But it's the fashionable relativism about "climbing" that I keep kicking back against. Again, DO whatever you wish, and CALL it whatever you wish. But I won't/can't agree that just anything (including the Wootification of existing routes) is respectable or even, in some cases, "climbing" at all.

Another WoT. Couldn't help myself.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 10, 2017 - 10:36pm PT

Frankly, I find you entirely baffling. It is basically impossible for me to engage with you, despite what I sometimes take as your sincere desire to do so, because I find no consistency in either content or tone.

You say things like, "Try assuming the best of others and it will go further I think you will find." But that sentiment is surround by sarcasm and your own misreading of me, such as: "Jeez, Richard, that is a lot of hyper-ventilating over a 110' of 5.7, isn't it?" And: "I think Western Civilization can withstand the assault." And more.

You are confident to "assess" my perspectives with (ridiculous) lines like, "What you share with Grossman is assuming the worst of some...." Ironically, you don't see that you are doing the same thing with that very sentence.

So, we can argue 'till the cows come home about who is doing what to whom, or who is "like" whom. It's all moot. Communication in general (not just written) is tenuous business at best. And for it to have ANY hope requires mutual belief in good faith. I haven't found that in your posts that "engage" with me.

I've reread all of your posts on this thread, and I remain unable to find a clear theme other than that the FA team should do whatever they think best. But that (pretty unhelpful) idea is surrounded in talk about routes being like languages, needing to be used to be live, and that a 5.7x isn't a route that's going to be "used" much, which strongly "encourages" retro-bolting. And you do quite clearly encourage the FA team to add some bolts, because they'll "probably" enjoy more "satisfaction" if the route was being "used."

I've argued that retro-bolting is retro-bolting, regardless of who does it. And many here have argued that the FA team doesn't "own" a route; they are no more entitled to retro-bolt a route than anybody else. You've not responded to any of that that I can see.

You decry Sloan for "erasing history," but then you encourage this particular FA team to (years later) do the same thing. I see no principles and no consistency.

The totality of what I can interpret is that you applaud some retro-bolting by somebody, provided that the FA team does... what? On that point things get VERY murky!

For retro-bolting to be legit, does the FA team have to DO the retro-bolting? Do they have to simply agree that it be done? Do they have to merely not disagree? If they don't come to any decision for... well, how long?... THEN it can be made a "living route" again, by somebody (apparently not Sloan)? How "finished" does the "painting" have to be before even the FA team shouldn't be messing with it? Are some routes just not worthy of this sort of consideration, so pretty much anybody can do anything to them later? Such routes are really not "history" enough to "protect" from "abominations" like what Sloan would do to "fix" them up?

Frankly, I have genuinely tried to interpret you with charity, and I can't find anything but a moving target. Your statement that Sloan is engaging in abominations is the first clear statement of that sort I've seen. But, as you see just above, the implications of that phrase are still wide open.

And, really, "abominations"? Aren't you now as "over the top" as me? What a wild and woolly term! WILL Western Civilization survive after all? (I hope you see my point here.)

You see, I find it frustrating trying to engage with you because you engage in unwarranted (to my mind) sarcasm and apparently intentional hyperbole to straw-man MY perspectives. But then you employ phrases like "abominations" that are apparently okay only if YOU use them.

Don't, then, say that I'm being like Grossman by "assuming the worst of some." I have sincerely tried to read you with charity, but I can't make heads or tails out of what you really believe, other than that in various threads you seem quick to disdain my perspectives.

Worse, to my mind, is that you choose Grossman quite apparently as a way to get my goat, but what you apparently don't realize is that I don't see Grossman as the "great Satan" you must think I do. I respect his climbing resume, and I believe that I share his core passion and principles in general. (I'm sure we could debate endlessly about the details.) I think that Grossman went to the "dark side" regarding "punishment" and his still, to my mind, strange inability to assess the evidence regarding one route. But I can see how in another life we might even have been friends, and I do NOT see him as some exemplar of evil!

And so, yet again, what you really mean to say strikes me as opaque, and I can't benefit from any of your "advice" because its premises seem so murky or wrong-headed to me.

The line that "this written medium is very imperfect for communicating how we feel" doesn't go far enough. The situation is far worse than that. This entire forum venue encourages snippy, little, snide, drive-by-shootings of "comments" that often convey little or no propositional content and that are rife with potential for misinterpretation.

If you want to live by your own admonitions, quit straw-manning me with lines like "I think Western Civilization can withstand the assault." I don't take you to be seriously trying to engage and be charitable when I've observed your repeated posts on various threads to be of that sort. When you "engage" at that level, you're begging me to not take you seriously.

I've responded seriously to your latest post. If there's any common ground regarding retro-bolting, great! But I honestly don't know how to interpret you, which is not for lack of trying.

I'll sum up by saying that I honestly do see retro-bolting as an attack on what climbing IS. Because I care about climbing, deeply!, I care to decry any even oblique encouragement of that practice that I see. However, what I've said just now, in that past couple of sentences, is as far as I'm going to go! I'll have no part in "punishment" or defamation. To the extent that a retro-bolter doesn't care about respect, s/he can't be touched by an expression of lack of respect. In that case, nothing more can be said or done, imo. And my preference would be to leave even a one-pitch 5.7x with the "risky" character established by the FA.

drljefe

climber

El Presidio San Augustin del Tucson

Mar 11, 2017 - 05:47am PT

In recognition for outstanding achievement in elite level WOTing.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 11, 2017 - 07:48am PT

And as far as erasing one's own history by such movement of fixed protection I think it is entirely up to the FA, and well within their prerogative, to do so. Its their own history. That is very different from Sloan power drilling bolt ladders around an A4 traverse on a Kor/Schmidtz/Madsen route (ie Great Slab) that I feel is yes, an abomination, in the same sense that adding bolts to Southern Belle or the BY would be, ie dishonoring the life's work of friends/historical figures that have passed on for Sloan's own edification.

I think that we're closer that it initially appeared. I'm not looking for "black and white answers." I believe that the principles involved are better thought of as resulting in a spectrum.

We're apparently agreed that Woot-boy is at one end of that spectrum. At the other end is ALL parties leaving the character of an FA alone. Somewhere near that end would be the FA team recently after an FA doing some "fix up work". And I do lean toward the idea that a route is much like a painting.

Taking that idea a bit further, imagine a famous artist donating a painting to a public art museum. Now she no longer "owns" the painting in ANY sense. It is neither "owned" by the art museum; if anything, the museum holds the piece in trust, ensuring that it can be enjoyed by the public, who more "own" it than any other entity. But the museum does "hold" and "protect" it for the enjoyment of the public.

Imagine now that the artist approaches the museum a few days after the donation (the paint is barely dry) and says, "I've thought about one section quite a lot, and I was never really satisfied with it. Could I have a couple of hours with the painting to redo that one section? Then I can call it 'finished' and be content."

Surely the museum will grant this.

By contrast, if years later the artist approaches the museum with the same request, they would (I believe rightly) decline that same request. As time passes, "what" that painting "is" becomes more and more fixed. And as that happens, even the artist loses the "right" to modify "what" the painting "is".

And, at ANY point, the museum would not grant to just some other artist (or person off the street) any access to modify the painting.

I think of "the climbing community" as much like the museum. "We all" sort of "own" a route once it becomes "publicly granted." And we all lose something of significance when even "less important" paintings are later modified, particularly when modified in such a way as to make them "more accessible." We NEED paintings that might not be "master works" but that nevertheless cause us to stand and stare, grappling with the meaning and implications, as we try to understand our own natures.

Woot boy runs roughshod through our museum, vandalizing our collective possessions, and we are justifiably angered by the loss. By contrast, the FA team (even perhaps years later) seems to us like the "better" candidate to "fix up" the original. Although, as I say, the more time that passes, the less likely I am to want to see even that. And I am most deeply suspicious of modifications that "make accessible" the harder paintings.

I hope that this sort of scenario can somewhat capture what my intuitions are regarding the "ownership" of a route and the "rights" that ANYBODY has to modify its character later.

Thanks for your post.

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Mar 11, 2017 - 04:22pm PT

Reading comprehension issues again. I don't think that I have to defend the bold nature of some of my FA's. I have always believed that bold leads should be respected.....the B/Y is a sterling example. The hypothetical that I presented was that a 5.7 unprotected lead by an elite climber is NOT in any way a bold lead for that person. Does that mean that the pitch should be left unprotected so that it is now out of reach for the very climbers who would appreciate it most? Think about it. I am talking hypothetically here and not addressing any particular climb.
It has been stated on this thread that the STYLE of the FA should always be respected. In 1974 I did an FA sans cams (they didn't exist) which required a 40 plus ft. runout on difficult ground. Dale Bard tried it a week later and took a 70 ft. fall. That climb,Overhang Overpass, had only one repeat (by John Bachar) until cams were available and the runout was tacken out of the equation. Does the style of the FA mean that all subsequent parties should leave their cams behind?

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 11, 2017 - 04:54pm PT

Does the style of the FA mean that all subsequent parties should leave their cams behind?

You're the one with the reading-comprehension issues.

I, for one, have repeatedly said that a route should not be ALTERED, that its character should not be DRILLED-DOWN to some arbitrary level. We've gone all over this ground, including a discussion about how pitons can permanently alter the character of a route.

There is no ALTERATION of a route in what sort of CLEAN protection a climber does or does not use. The ROUTE remains exactly the same regardless of whether a particular ascent uses cams, nuts, or nothing at all.

This thread has nothing to do with your cams/nuts scenario. The issue WE are discussing concerns permanent alterations to the ROUTE, not some "style" of this or that ascent that leaves behind no alteration of the route itself. We're talking about changing the route itself, not the style of some particular ascent.

Is this REALLY so hard for you to comprehend? Seriously.

I'm boggled that you are still whipping this entirely irrelevant point. Nothing about your (yet again, conveniently, "I was a bad-a55 back in the 70's") scenario has anything whatsoever to do with PERMANENTLY altering a route.

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Mar 11, 2017 - 05:22pm PT

Get a life.....maybe even go climbing.

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Mar 11, 2017 - 05:47pm PT

Not that it matters, or all the discussion here, but I agree with Donini over all the walls of text. Bolt that puppy so everyone can enjoy it. Its not like an intentional testpeice.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 11, 2017 - 06:07pm PT

I agree with Donini over all the walls of text. Bolt that puppy so everyone can enjoy it.

More reading comprehension issues.

Donini is not advocating "bolting the puppy."

And, while you're making it so that "everybody can enjoy it," why stop at bolts? Put an escalator up the puppy. Those in a wheelchair shouldn't be denied the "enjoyment." It's not like the route matters. Right?

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Mar 11, 2017 - 06:32pm PT

Right!

Without humans to climb it and communicate their impression their exists no routes on a piece of rock or mountain. Why not add a few bolts so average 5.9 climbers can enjoy it without streaking it in red and providing more labors for Werner.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Mar 11, 2017 - 07:11pm PT

Why not add a few bolts so average 5.9 climbers can enjoy it without streaking it in red and providing more labors for Werner.

Simply because there's countless others just like it except for the risk-factor. And on this route, but with added bolts, they wouldn't be giving their impression of THIS route. They'd be giving their impression of one of the countless similar routes.

Why not leave THIS route with the unique character it does have? WHY do all routes of a grade need to attain a common-denominator?

Messages 1 - 415 of total 415 in this topic

Return to Forum List

Our Guidebooks

Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Trip Report and Articles

The Kohala Ditch Trail: 36ish hrs on foot... to and from the headwaters. [5 of 5]
May 31, 2019; 11:57pm
A Winter Traverse of the California section of the PCT Part 8
May 31, 2019; 10:05pm
Supertopo,A trip report for posterity
May 18, 2019; 7:33am
Balch Fest 2013. Two Days in and Around and On The Flake. The Official Trip Report
Nov 18, 2013; 8:22pm
TR: My visit to the Canoe
Aug 14, 2006; 12:29am
View more trip reports >

Recent Route Beta

El Capitan, West Face
Yosemite Valley, California USA, Apr 30, 2019
Half Dome, Regular Northwest Face
Yosemite Valley, California USA, Apr 18, 2019
El Capitan, West Face
Yosemite Valley, California USA, Apr 17, 2019
El Capitan, Pacific Ocean Wall Base
Yosemite Valley, California USA, Mar 31, 2019
Mescalito South, Cat in the Hat
Red Rocks, Nevada USA, Mar 16, 2019
View more route beta >