Cerro Torre, A Mountain Consecrated - The Resurrection of th


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1281 - 1300 of total 1703 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The cad

Does it matter, really?!?
Feb 3, 2012 - 05:41pm PT
I'd vote for "The Chopressor Route" :)

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Feb 3, 2012 - 05:48pm PT
In the end, I have to wonder if the bad blood is not chiefly from climbers who - given a window of good weather - could for 40 years thieve their way up the greatest rock in creation via a bolt ladder, and now have to man/woman up and climb the chingadera via fair means. I can understand this, somewhat. Any well-seasoned wall climber with gumption, nerve and luck could probably get up the compressor route if the storms cooperated. And now the via feratta be gone. Perhaps the original line served its purpose, and now another option has been gifted the present day wall climber. Hard to say.

Conversely, the whole historical issue can be argued from various sides.
Many grifters and frauds are "historical" figures, but that doesn't mean we should laud their deeds for posterity, or that we'd not be better off if their sagas never happened.

I don't know, or have any answers. But I do know the guys and gals out there at the thin end of the wedge won't be asking for anyone's permission and could care less about any consensus.

Jim Clipper

from: forests to tree farms
Feb 3, 2012 - 06:09pm PT
I don't know, or have any answers. But I do know the guys and gals out there at the thin end of the wedge won't be asking for anyone's permission and could care less about any consensus.

shouldn't that be: "... the sharp end, the fat end of the thin wedge, ...

smiling here, at my editing behind a screen in a dark room. Thanks for the words, the experience, and the largess ...
nick d

Trad climber
Feb 3, 2012 - 09:35pm PT
Jim, I am just playing devil's advocate here. But I was thinking that one of your very favorite climbing areas is Indian Creek.

I have been visiting the Needles District for almost forty years, and when I was a kid I remember having to consruct rappell anchors. I was too much of a giant sissy to follow in the Jimmy Dunn mode and climb to the top, the rock up high scared the crap out of me.

Now no climbs go to the top, apparently I'm not the only giant sissy in town. You don't have to build rap anchors though, every one of the thousands of climbs have been bolted into submission by guys with power drills.

Their power drills are smaller than Maestri's, but they are power drills just the same.

So my question to you Jim, is the next time you go there to climb, are you going to the top and chopping any and all bolts you pass?

Nick Danger

Bishop, CA
Feb 3, 2012 - 10:03pm PT
Gas powered air compressor power drill always bothered me. Not that I'm likely to climb Cerro Torre with or without bolts but to me it seemed like the wrong place for that tool. Motor sports have always turned me off a bit.

Now Mr. Danger has pointed out a power drill is a power drill.

Very interesting.

Best to keep those drills and hammers off the rock. Save some stuff for the kids who will out style YOUR ascent.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Feb 3, 2012 - 11:27pm PT
So,.. did Don Johnson's cell phone in Miami Vice bother you too?
'Pass the Pitons' Pete

Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
Feb 4, 2012 - 12:20am PT
"In my next life, I may go up there with genetically modified tendons and muscles and cruise the thing in pleasant weather with no ice anywhere and wonder what weaklings the previous generation was."

Hey, Karl - what were you in your past life?

P. D. Z.

["Danger" is my middle name.]
Jim Clipper

from: forests to tree farms
Feb 4, 2012 - 12:22am PT
For Ron, a historical footnote:

Can you get reception from those towers?

Trad climber
Feb 4, 2012 - 12:39am PT
. . . Indian Creek. . . . Every one of the thousands of climbs have been bolted into submission by guys with power drills.

Their power drills are smaller than Maestri's, but they are power drills just the same.

So my question to you Jim, is the next time you go there to climb, are you going to the top and chopping any and all bolts you pass?

Apples and oranges.

Indian Creek is a roadside cragging area anchor bolted in the late 80s and '90s, mostly after the rise of sport climbing and arguably (in some cases) to prevent even worse environmental damage from improv rap anchors from the growing throngs.

Cerro Torre was one of the most desirable and difficult alpine rock summits in the world, and it was bolted in the teeth of a period move to end expedition climbing.

(And for those who keep bringing up the Harding Route, as if the '50s in California and the '70s in Patagonia were the same thing, that was also a radically different situation, in which American climbers adapted Tirolian/German traditions from earlier in the 20th century to link together crack systems with stretches of hand-drilled expansion bolts, which were then still something of a novelty.)

And before folks start drooling, I'm not defending the chopping.


Galgenen, Switzerland
Feb 4, 2012 - 02:33am PT
Enzolino, first off, I want to make sure you know that even if I don't share your perspective I do somewhat understand it.

I'm curious about the case if someone -- the same person, at the same time -- would have said both of the above things. Would you have disagreed with the chopping, or agreed?
The point is that disrespect escalates the conflict rather than solving it. As a consequence, people will tend to re-bolt a route and at the end everybody loses: the choppers, the dissenters, and the wilderness of the mountain.

I've heard that some people want to place some bolts again on the Compressor's route. And this demostrates what I said before.

If someone might be interested, apparently the criticism towards the KKK chopping, in Italy, is unanimous
Even Salvaterra. In his opinion some of Maestri's bolts should be removed, but he wanted to ask Maestri's first. And I share the belief that we should pursue to keep the wilderness of the mountains. But there are different ways to do it. Unfortunately, the way KKK carried on their action shows just a lack of respect.

it seems that you support autonomous decisions without consensus as one of the "price" the vanguard has to pay (sorry if I misunderstand you). And that who is at the vanguard doesn't need consensus. But this doesn't make the authors of these choices necessarily heroes. Furthermore, the fact that KKK made their decision either along the route, or after a deep introspective dialogue (yeah ... sure ...) in my opinion shows just how immature and shallow was their decision.

Trad climber
Upper Leftish
Feb 4, 2012 - 10:49pm PT

Long but thorough case for the removal.

Hobart, Australia
Feb 4, 2012 - 11:06pm PT
The google translate version of the Italian response above:

Regarding Colin Haley's arguments, this one runs a bit thin, in my opinion:
"Others have criticized Hayden and Jason for using and leaving in place some of Maestri's belay/rappel stations. They did this as a compromise to appease you. If you think that is hypocritical, then feel free to go remove them. There is plentiful natural gear available, and climbing or rappelling the southeast ridge will not be compromised if you remove every last one of Maestri's bolts."

"..to appease you"--> huh!?
And "plentiful natural gear available", then why has the "fair means" ascent been so long in process?--not to mention the fact that no one has yet climbed and descended the route without the use of the original bolts.

(Edit) In a way, all bolts are convenience bolts. They obviously left a few so it would be easier to rappel. But in the same vein, Maestri put them in so it was easier to ascend. To me, this is a key point: once you assume the role of being the decider of which bolts on someone else's route are proper and which are not, the "pure" argument fails. Purer, perhaps, but "pure", no. We've seen this play out in Yosemite (as well as other arenas) on the Dawn Wall, with Robbins eventually realising the futility of such judgement. Fair means in this sense becomes very subjective.
(End edit)

The more the "defence" speaks, the more vague the original intent becomes. And intent matters here--after all, Maestri's intent is one of the recurring arguments justifying the bolt removal.

I reckon the two should stick with the adage: "Never explain - your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway." Both the creation of the route, and the "first fair-means ascent" (in its current definition) as justification for the removal of the bolts were art in their own way, but a good artist never explains, rather only describes the original inspiration.

Trad climber
East Wenatchee, WA
Feb 4, 2012 - 11:21pm PT
Holy crap jfs...that link you posted is frigging BRILLIANT! I cannot recall reading ANYTHING so astute on SuperTopo ever!

It was so brilliant in fact that it changed my mind. I've been going round and round over this issue, leaning towards thinking they should not have chopped the bolts.

After reading that essay, screw that. Those bolts should have been chopped 40 years ago, Maestri is one of the biggest dick's ever, and congratulations to the bolt coppers!

Trad climber
East Wenatchee, WA
Feb 4, 2012 - 11:26pm PT
Just in case you did not click on the link...

Please read this and try to argue with it!


The Removal of Cesare Maestri's Bolt Ladders on Cerro Torre
A couple weeks ago, climbers Hayden Kennedy and Jason Kruk completed the first "fair means" ascent of the southeast ridge of Cerro Torre, and on their descent successfully removed a large portion of the bolt ladders installed there in 1971 by Cesare Maestri. This has sparked a large debate within the global climbing community, as to whether it was a wise action, and if Kennedy and Kruk had the right to make it. I would personally love to stay un-involved in this debate, but having climbed in the Fitz Roy range for eight seasons, having descended the southeast ridge of Cerro Torre twice, and having attempted the southeast ridge of Cerro Torre twice by "fair means," I feel it is my obligation to share my thoughts. I will try to break this long-winded essay into separate, more managable subjects, starting with my personal history with Cerro Torre.


I have been dreaming of Cerro Torre since I was twelve years old. I don't remember exactly which photo I saw first, but at that time I was already obsessed with climbing mountains, and I specifically remember being awestruck by photos I saw of this mountain. Cerro Torre became my greatest dream - if there was one goal I wanted to accomplish in my life, it was to climb Cerro Torre. When I was fifteen I tried to convince my cousin Aidan, two years younger and my main climbing partner at the time, that we needed to start training, and go attempt the Compressor Route in two years - when I would be seventeen and him fifteen. By the time I was seventeen I knew I wasn't ready for Cerro Torre, but two years later, in 2003, I finally went to the Fitz Roy range with my friend Bart Paull. We managed to climb three of the easier summits of the Fitz Roy massif, and on our last climbing day, on Aguja de l'S, I finally saw Cerro Torre for the first time. On my second trip to Patagonia, in 2005 with Mark Westman, I managed to climb the rest of the seven "major summits" of the Fitz Roy ridgeline, and I decided that I was finally ready to try Cerro Torre.

In 2006 I went to Patagonia with Kelly Cordes, with Cerro Torre as our main goal. At the time my thoughts on the Compressor Route were fairly ambivalent, and we planned to attempt the West Face mostly because it was more suited to our climbing strengths and interests. Although we spent almost our entire trip festering in camp during bad weather, at the last minute a great weather window arrived. We climbed Cerro Torre via a linkup of the "Tiempos Perdidos" route on the left margin of the south face and the Ragni route on the west face (this was the first integral ascent of "Tiempos Perdidos"). The climb was an absolute dream come true - a beautiful, 1,500m line of fantastic ice and mixed terrain, that played perfectly to our strengths as a team, to a summit that I had been obsessing over for ten years.

Kelly and I descended Cerro Torre via the southeast ridge, which neither of us had been on before, and my thoughts on the Compressor Route changed dramatically. It is difficult to comprehend the Compressor Route without seeing it in person - both in terms of the enormous quantity of Maestri's bolts, and in terms of the bolt ladders' locations, in close proximity to easily-protectable, easily-climbable terrain. After seeing the Compressor Route first hand, I knew I had no desire to climb it, and since then I have never considered an ascent of the Compressor Route to be an ascent of Cerro Torre - the climber on that route is simply too disconnected from engaging with the mountain itself.

The following season, I had the tremendous fortune of being in the right place at the right time, and I got to partner with Rolando Garibotti to make the first ascent of the Torres Traverse. Although I can aspire to greater personal goals since I played a lesser role in the Torres Traverse than Rolo, I don't think I'll ever make an ascent more significant than this first ascent. I think that Rolo is certainly one of the best alpinists of our time, and the best Patagonian alpinist of recent years - seeing him at his peak of performance was an inspiration that continues to drive my progression as a climber today. Rolo and I also descended the southeast ridge of Cerro Torre, and I think that season, 2008, is when I first realized that Maestri's bolt ladders ought to be removed some day.

Last year, in February 2011, I made two attempts to climb the southeast ridge of Cerro Torre by "fair means," the first with Zack Smith and the second with Rolo Garibotti and Doerte Pietron. On both attempts we were turned back by poor weather at the base of the ice towers. On both attempts we carried a small bolt kit which we thought we might use on the headwall, rationalizing that adding a few bolts to avoid a few hundred was a sound trade. In hindsight I think it is fortunate that we were turned back by weather - perhaps if we had been able to continue we would have put several bolts in the headwall, which Hayden managed to lead without placing any. It would have been a perfect, short-term example of "stealing a climb from the future."

Since I first read about the Compressor Route, my cumulation of personal climbing experience, my knowledge of climbing history, and my cumulation of personal experience in the Fitz Roy range have all increased by huge amounts, and my opinion of the Compressor route has accordingly changed from an ambivalent one to a conviction that Maestri's bolt ladders ought to be removed. Because of the obviously controversial nature of removing Maestri's bolt ladders, I have never had the courage to act on my conviction. Now that Hayden and Jason have done what I believed in but was too cowardly to do, the least I can do is voice my support for them.


A lot of the discussion surrounding the bolt removal has been focused on who Hayden and Jason are, where they come from, what style they climbed in, if they can be considered "locals" of these mountains, and what their motives were. To me, this discussion is largely irrelevant to the real question: Do Maestri's bolt ladders belong on Cerro Torre, and if they don't, is it right to remove them 40 years after they were installed? For many people I think it is important that the people who removed Maestri's bolt ladders were the same people who first climbed the southeast ridge by fair means, but to me this doesn't matter all that much. I believe that Maestri's bolt ladders do not belong on Cerro Torre, so it really doesn't make any difference to me if they are removed by a Canadian, Argentinean or Cambodian climber, young or old climber. A few years from now we won't care too much about who removed Maestri's bolt ladders, we will care about what state the southeast ridge of Cerro Torre is in.


Several people have been calling for more respect to be paid to Cesare Maestri, who is now in his old age and of failing health. Sorry to be brutally honest, but I simply don't have respect for liars. Maestri told the biggest lie in the history of climbing for the gain of his own reputation. Alpine climbing often relies on the honor system, and unfortunately people like Maestri ruin the system of honesty for all of us. Dishonesty goes beyond the simple game of besting one's competition - consider for a moment that Maestri's drive to be labeled the winner was so great that he didn't even have the decency to tell Toni Egger's mother and sister the true circumstances of how Toni died in the mountains.

The fact that Maestri also vengefully showed the world the most heavy-handed climbing style it has ever seen - the epitome of the "murder of the impossible" - doesn't help him gain respect.

If Maestri were to come clean in his old age, and tell the world what actually happened during his 1959 Cerro Torre attempt, it would probably require more courage than any climb ever demanded of him. If Maestri could do that, I could respect him.


Many people have been bringing up the very valid point that generally in climbing we respect the style of the first ascent of a route. However, people have been neglecting to keep in mind that Maestri did not make the first ascent of the southeast ridge of Cerro Torre. In climbing mountains, especially such sharp needles as in the Fitz Roy range, a successful ascent ends on the top of the mountain. Not only did Maestri not manage to reach the summit of Cerro Torre, but most evidence suggests that he did not even reach the top of the headwall (Jim Bridwell was the first to note this). Therefore, if you want to ask the first ascensionists their opinions about what should become of the southeast ridge of Cerro Torre, you will have to consult Jim Bridwell and Steve Brewer.

Some people will inevitably say that even though Maestri didn't climb Cerro Torre, the style up to his high-point ought to be respected. By that same logic, Maestri would have been violating the style of Fonrouge, Boysen, Burke, Crew and Haston, who climbed half-way up Cerro Torre's southeast ridge in 1968 without placing any bolts. By the time Maestri had reached the same level on the mountain as their highpoint he had already placed hundreds of bolts.


Obviously the concept of "fair means" is very subjective. What one person considers only "necessary" bolts can vary dramatically from what another person considers "necessary" bolts. However, the Compressor Route bolt ladders are far, far, beyond anyone's definition of "necessary" bolts. Even Kurt Albert's routes on nearby Fitz Roy, Aguja Mermoz and Aguja St. Exupery (which have bolted belays every 35 meters or less, and include at least 3 bolts per pitch, immediately next to perfect cracks) are not even in the same realm of over-bolting that the compressor route is. There were some spots on the Compressor Route where a climber clipped to one bolt with a daisy chain could easily touch more than ten other bolts.

How did Maestri put up a climb that was so far beyond anything else in terms of bolting? The answer is that he used tactics that have never been used by another climber before or since. A gasoline-powered air compressor is not climbing equipment - it is industrial equipment. With his compressor Maestri could place a bolt more easily than he could place a chock or piton, so of course bolt-ladders up blank rock, even with crack systems immediately nearby, were suddenly a logical solution for him. Maestri explained that he put a single bolt ladder up the entire 5-pitch headwall because they had forgotten the pitons down below. How does one arrive to 5 pitches below Cerro Torre's summit and only there realize that the pitons were left far below? - only with a gasoline-powered air compressor.

Many people have been comparing the Compressor Route to The Nose on El Capitan. I think that most of these people must not have seen both routes in person. If the Compressor Route were established with the same bolting discretion as Warren Harding used on The Nose, it would have something like 50 bolts on it. On the other hand, if The Nose were established with the same bolting discretion as Maestri used on the Compressor Route, it would have more than 2,000 bolts on it.

I am not extremely anti-bolt. Even Kurt Albert's bolts on the east pillar of Aguja Mermoz (a route which was climbed 90% of the way to the summit without a single bolt, in a single day, before Albert layed siege to it), which go beyond all normal conventions of acceptable bolt use, do not bother me anywhere close to as much as Maestri's bolt ladders on Cerro Torre. I really think it is such a sad shame that the most beautiful mountain on earth (in my opinion), which naturally requires fantastic and difficult climbing to reach its summit, is marred by a via ferrata (And yes, it is a "via ferrata," even if much more difficult than most via ferrata - after all, "via ferrata" means "iron way.").


As in any discussion regarding bolts that some people consider unnecessary, some people have asked why Hayden and Jason didn't just leave the bolts in, and future climbers could always opt to simply not clip them. However, as long as the bolts ladders are there, future climbers are denied an adventure, because the mere presence of the bolts changes one's experience dramatically. With the bolt ladders removed, a climber ventures upward with doubts and fears, constantly trying to gauge where the next protection will be and where the route will go, and climbs with commitment - knowing that a poor route-finding choice might place him or her in a bad situation. With the bolt ladders in place, the knowledge that you can immediately end your fear and doubt at any moment removes the commitment completely. With the bolt ladders in place, the climber is denied the experience of moving fearfully into the unknown, and the elation that comes from finding a good crack or good holds for security. With the bolt ladders in place there is no real adventure; choosing to not clip the bolts can only amount to a contrived game. I certainly am much more inspired to go attempt Cerro Torre's headwall now, as a canvas of natural rock, than I ever was before to go play a contrived game of bolt-skipping.

Thus, climbing for adventure on the southeast ridge of Cerro Torre, and climbing for tourism on the southeast ridge, are completely at odds with each other. As long as Maestri's bolt ladders are in place, one cannot climb for adventure on the southeast ridge, and with the bolts removed, the tourists are denied their easy route to the summit. It really comes down to a question of which you value more, adventure or tourism? I think we can all agree that the currently-popular phrase "adventure tourism" is oxymoronic.

I'm sure that many people will be offended that I refer to the Compressor Route as "tourism," and I'm sorry about that. Ultimately, I think it more important to be honest and potentially offensive than speak tactfully and untruthfully. Quite simply, the Compressor Route is an avenue to "tick" the summit of Cerro Torre without actually engaging the difficulties of the mountain - completely analogous to climbing Everest with supplemental oxygen.


Many people have called Hayden and Jason elitist, because they are forcing future climbers on the southeast ridge to rise to their climbing level, removing the via ferrata which allowed access to climbers who didn't actually posses the skill to climb Cerro Torre's southeast ridge. What then about the poor unfortunate souls who are denied their "right" to summit Torre Egger? What if I went to Patagonia next year and installed a 1,200m bolt ladder up the east pillar of Torre Egger, making it accessible to all the 5.8 climbers who are currently denied their Torre Egger experience?

It is ridiculous to attempt to choose an arbitrary difficulty-level that a route should be dumbed-down to. Here's a concept: just leave the difficulty level as it was naturally!


History is not a physical object. You cannot destroy history unless you are able to burn every book, destroy every hard-drive and erase everyone's memory. At most one can claim that a monument has been destroyed, but history remains unharmed. Maestri showed us the worst example of heavy-handed climbing style that a mountain has ever experienced - it is not something that people will forget. Also, Maestri's air compressor remains lashed to the middle of Cerro Torre's headwall - as long as it remains it will be unmistakable physical evidence of what Maestri did to Cerro Torre (although personally I would rather see it removed).


Of course it would have been much better if Maestri's bolt ladders were removed the year after their installation rather than 40 years after the fact. If that were the case, no one would call them "history" or "Argentine patrimony." However, I think that when the bolt ladders were installed, most of the world wasn't aware of the extent of the bolting. In addition, Maestri's siege on the southeast ridge used 1,000 meters of fixed rope and nine months, so it took a long time before people realized that the bolt ladders could be easily removed in a single day.

For the 40 years that Maestri's bolt ladders were in place, Cerro Torre was a compromised mountain. Very impressive routes that joined the Compressor Route at the headwall, such as Devil's Directissima and Quinque Anni ad Paradisum, will unfortunately always be tarnished by the fact that they ascended the last five pitches of Cerro Torre on a ladder of bolts. This is not the fault of the first ascensionists (Jeglic, Karo, Knez, Podgornik, Kozjek, Fistravek, Salvaterra, Beltrami, and Rossetti - many of the biggest names in Cerro Torre history), because, as I already explained, skipping the bolts immediately in front of you is a contrived game that most alpinists are not interested in. Both of these routes climbed an enormous amount of very difficult climbing to reach the base of the headwall, but the last five pitches of Cerro Torre were stolen from them by Maestri.

The removal of Maestri's bolt ladders was inevitable. If it hadn't been done by Hayden and Jason, it would have been done before too long by someone else. There were other climbers in El Chalten this season who had specific plans to remove Maestri's bolt ladders - and no, it wasn't me or Rolo, but some very strong and accomplished alpinists from Europe.


Some people have told me that anyone who has ever used Maestri's bolts (such as Garibotti, Cordes and myself rappelling from them) cannot support the removal of the bolts without hypocrisy. I think it is almost exactly the opposite in fact - I think that people who have seen Maestri's bolt ladders in person generally have a much better understanding of their physical context than people who have only read about them or seen photos.

Others have criticized Hayden and Jason for using and leaving in place some of Maestri's belay/rappel stations. They did this as a compromise to appease you. If you think that is hypocritical, then feel free to go remove them. There is plentiful natural gear available, and climbing or rappelling the southeast ridge will not be compromised if you remove every last one of Maestri's bolts.


As I said at first, I would personally prefer to stay far away from this controversy. However, I feel that Hayden and Jason have done a great service to the global community of Patagonian alpinists, and it saddens me to see them receive so much criticism for what I consider an altruistic act. Many of the people who agree with the bolt removal are staying quiet simply to stay out of drama (and in fact, some people who have previously expressed their wish for the bolt ladders to be removed, are now back-pedaling in the face of controversy), but I see it as my obligation to speak out in support of them.

I'm sure that many people, particularly on internet forums, will criticize me for writing this essay. Please remain civil. Just because you disagree with my opinion doesn't mean you need to hate me or denigrate me personally. I won't criticize you for lamenting the bolt removal. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

Trad climber
Feb 4, 2012 - 11:28pm PT
The point is that disrespect escalates the conflict rather than solving it. As a consequence, people will tend to re-bolt a route and at the end everybody loses: the choppers, the dissenters, and the wilderness of the mountain.

I think this is correct about "escalation," but incorrect about "solution." This issue has no solution, and isn't likely to have one in the near future.

That bolt ladder was going the way of all flesh. Similar ladders in lower altitudes have gradually rotted, going from A0 to A4 to a nothing over the years. (Cf. Ed Cooper's ridiculous ladder on The Squamish Chief-- probably a better analogy than The Nose.)

Typically, as the ladders deteriorate, folks add occasional additional bolts along the way. Chop some bolts. Gank others. Glue plumber's tape on top of others. At some point, folks have to make a decision: Replace the bolt ladder or not? Replace parts of it? Move parts of it? Repl;ace belays? Rap stations?

Now, the choice is clear, and without an additional ten, fifteen or twenty years worth of intervening tat, rust, and gankage. The chopping accelerated the natural process. Easy enough now for anyone motivated to pool some Hiltis and spend a season on crag maintenance. It was going to have to happen eventually. Or not.

That doesn't make chopping "right." I grew up with alpine style as my ideal, but the justification set out in the Alpinist piece-- no consensus was going to happen, therefore we imposed our will--makes me uneasy.

I am curious about the chop. I gather that the team didn't carry a bar, Sika and emery paper to cleanly pull and re-fill each hole with granite dust and glue.


Big Wall climber
total Disarray
Feb 4, 2012 - 11:32pm PT
It's too wide. Thanks.

Trad climber
minneapolis, mn
Feb 4, 2012 - 11:32pm PT
at the risk of sounding like a noob, how does one chop a bolt? my understanding is that Kruk/Kennedy decided to chop on the spur of the moment, but I'm guessing they had only the usual alpine paraphernalia at hand.

can someone post a photo essay on bolt chopping with before and after?

Trad climber
Upper Leftish
Feb 4, 2012 - 11:35pm PT
And "plentiful natural gear available", then why has the "fair means" ascent been so long in process?

Duece I'd guess that's because the "plentiful natural gear available" is not in reference to the actually un-free climbed portions of the headwall. Rather a reference to the easy terrain down low. Doesn't seem vague to me.

Anyway...just thought Colin's thoughts were a worthy addition to an admittedly pretty tired thread.


Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
Feb 4, 2012 - 11:39pm PT
Colin Haley's post on the matter was interesting, but it still doesn't answer a few of my questions which are fundamental to the whole discussion.

I still don't understand why people laud K&K for a job less than 1/3 complete. If their goal was to erase the Compressor Route then take out all 450 bolts. Of course, we know the answer to this question. They only decided on the summit of Cerro Torre to "chop" the route.

If K&K had formulated a plan beforehand to remove all bolts(or all unneccesary bolts) and then followed through then I would be much more likely to applaud their efforts because they made a statement to "erase" the Compressor Route and followed through until it was gone.

As it stands now, the Compressor Route is like a bastard child. Some bolts are gone and some bolts remain. I am guessing that some of the bolts that remain are the same bolts that many of you use to point to what a mess Maestri made.

The bottom line. If you are going to do a job, either do it right or don't do it at all. I challenge K&K to man up and go back up on Cerro Torre and finish the job they started. If they do that then I will have more respect for their motives and their efforts.
Mighty Hiker

Vancouver, B.C.
Feb 4, 2012 - 11:40pm PT
Kerwin, the bolts on the Grand Wall at Squamish were as much Jim Baldwin's effort as they were Ed Cooper's. And the bolts weren't unnecessary let alone ridiculous, in context of the times.

It seems possible that Maestri honestly believes that he and Egger reached the top in 1959. That is, whatever happened to him and Egger, and then to him alone, had psychological consequences such that he can't remember, can't distinguish fact from delusion, and perhaps later stitched the pieces together. What injuries or illness (if any) could cause that? Concussion? Anyway, if he firmly if wrongly believed that they got to the top, based on the 'evidence' of his memories, that might explain some other things. It seems unlikely, given that the actual evidence from 1959, and what was seen there in 1976 and later, is so different from what Maestri claims they encountered and did. Still, it's a hypothesis that should be considered. An internally consistent delusion.

Edit: Baldwin and Cooper placed few if any bolts below the top of the Flake/Apron Strings, and although it's irrelevant, may not even have known of the ledge approach to the top of the Flake. They followed the Flake corner nearly to its top, then bolted up and right to the bottom of the Pillar, using natural features where available. And what much later became Mercy Me wasn't known at the time, or obvious - Snake Dike in the Valley may have been the first such climb, but some years later. (The Mercy Me approach to the base of the Grand wasn't done until the late 1970s or later.) Had Ed and Jim done Mercy Me as an approach to the bottom of the Pillar, again in context of 1961 equipment and technique, I wonder how many bolts they would have used?
Messages 1281 - 1300 of total 1703 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta