Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
"The practice of leaving alone the parts of existing routes that a person thinks possess merit and changing other parts that she deems silly, lame--whatever--is disconcerting to me, I would guess other climbers as well. Every time someone takes or condones this approach without input from the FA, it produces more justification for others to do the same. And we can imagine what shape (even more of) our routes would be in if everyone led with a drill and the mentality you had when you added the holes. "
that hits the nail right on the head.
the idea that you can do whatever you want on your own FA (WOS) because it's your FA seems to conflict w/ the idea that you can do whatever you want on someone else's route (WOC).
i've got another thought experiment for ya, right back atchya:
suppose i get the idea to free some existing aid lines, let's even pick your WOS line as an exapmle. when i return from freeing said route, i announce that enhanced hooking on chossy exfoliating edges is boring, slow, silly, and contrived, and that the route now goes free at 11c PG, nothing but QDs needed for the entire great slab. your reaction?
and lastly, i don't really care much about that WOS argument, but you can't really expect people who are interested not to look at your record when they try to decide if they will take your word for various things or not. IMO you either pull out the drill because it's convenient or you do it because there is no other way. now you want to tell people that it depends on the way you were feeling that week? that's a hard sell, best of luck.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
To Mike:
Let's start at the top. First, "Price apparently put up a pitch that diverted from the Sea. By your description, and by klaus's, you drilled on at least one existing lead." No, Price's variation starts part way into a Sea pitch and ends farther into that SAME Sea pitch. The Price is Light variation "drills on an existing lead." The variation was done because the 9-5 pitch is grungy and circuitous, so Price simply added a drilled variation to avoid it. Same pitch, same section, and no meaningful "diversion."
Second, "By your 'justification' above, the retro rivets added to, for example, the hooking stretches of Re-Animator are a variation too, since the rivets divert from the original placements. And free climbing, penjiing, hooking, nailing, nutting, etc. sections through indirect weaknesses would be better straightened out with rivets." No, as I made clear, the point has nothing to do with "divert from the original placements." The point has to do with climbing a completely different section of rock. You claim that I am saying that it is ok to drill on the SAME stretch of rock to "bypass" existing climbing on THAT section, yet I have never said that. On the 10th pitch of WoC, my rivets go up and right on completely different rock than the penjii that goes down and farther right (in EXACTLY the same way that Price's rivets go up onto completely different rock), to provide an alternative way to reach a higher point than that established by the FA team. What I did was no different in principle or in practice from what Price did. By contrast, retro-rivets on hooking sections downgrade THAT VERY SECTION of the climb, as the climb is ABOUT that very hooking on that very section of rock. Such a case cannot be made for this penjii.
You have completely ignored and failed to respond to my thought experiment. I'm waiting to hear the answer to my dilemma.
Third, "And we can imagine what shape (even more of) our routes would be in if everyone led with a drill and the mentality you had when you added the holes." Your statement "led with the drill" implies that I was up there just planting holes willy-nilly whenever a wild hair struck me. And you clearly have no idea what mentality I had. As I have said, I take drilling on an established route very seriously and in general do not think it is a good idea. But, as I also said, any blanket statement to the effect that such is NEVER justified is simply unreasonable and not in harmony with the history of climbing.
Fourth, I appreaciate your effort to introduce some charity into the discussion. However, it is not the case that I am "involuntarily resistant to simply admitting I f*#ked up because I think people will then relate my actions to my Wings route (as it seems I consistently do)." One of my earliest posts on this very thread explicitly distinguished between anything I did on WoC solo and anything Mark and I did on WoS together. Two different climbs. So, not only do I not "consistently do" the sort of comparison you suggest, in this very thread I have sought to nip such a comparison in the bud.
Furthermore, not only am I not "resistent to simply admitting I f*#cked up," as you will see from the fourth Wings thread, Mark and I both have been very forthright in admitting our few instances of batheading and that these were a mistake. If I believe or am brought to see by force of reasonable argument that I "f&#cked up," then I am more than merely willing to admit that fact. Like you say, I see myself as "human and prone to making mistakes." It's just that nobody has yet convinced me that these three rivets are anything more than a tempest in a teapot and not a mistake.
Now, to Matt:
Regarding your thought experiment, I don't see how it in any way addresses mine at all. In fact, I haven't yet heard an answer to the dilemma I presented there. Instead, you are in effect asking me what I would think of somebody doing something to WoS. I respond the same way I have over and over in those threads. To quote Harding, "I don't give a rat's ass what anybody does with the route." Honestly, what the route becomes over time has nothing whatsoever to do with the route Mark and I put up, the experience we had on it, why we climbed it, or the objective facts of the matter that concern the quality of our climbing. If somebody wants to erase the route, rap from Horse Chute and turn it into a sport climb, or whatever, that simply doesn't affect me because it doesn't affect OUR climb of the thing.
Part of the problem with climbing (and Harding was deadly on this very thing) is that climbers start getting all ego-involved in their latest "masterpiece" and treat their routes like they are paintings or some such thing. Then, anybody else doing anything different to their route becomes a "defacement". The "climb" ceases to be an experience FOR THEM and becomes a performance and a "route" for others.
Now, I'm not denying that it is impossible to completely avoid this tendency, because we do care about the product of our work, and our reputations matter to us. But an FA team has got to realize that whatever they put up isn't going to last even one more ascent, as the Sea itself clearly demonstrates. I talked to the Bird after Mark and I did the fifth ascent of the Sea, and I asked him what he thought about the retro-holes, etc. that had already appeared on it (by VERY respectable climbers, I might add). His response was, a la Harding, "Whatever they do to it, I don't really care. That's not the route I climbed."
That's my point here. If climbers do the penjii in this case, then it will be one route, and if they elect to use my few rivets, it will be a different route. The one has no effect on the other in this case. Moreover, I'm quite happy for somebody to go up there and chop my "retro" rivets if they like. In THAT single circumstance, what I did seemed reasonable to me, and I haven't heard even a HINT of anything yet to cause me to question the legitimacy of it in THAT single case. But, I'm open to other arguments, and perhaps one of them will get the job done. Meanwhile, do what you will with Wings or anything else for that matter. Tempest in a teapot!
Final responses to Matt:
Matt says, "...you can't really expect people who are interested not to look at your record when they try to decide if they will take your word for various things or not." Of course people will look at my record, although, unlike Mike above, you now seem to be TRYING to conflate what I did on WoC with what happened on WoS. So, which is it going to be? Should I try to please Mike by AVOIDING that conflation, or should I try to please Matt by admitting that conflation and responding accordingly?
Well, I'll do neither. People will either take my word at this point because these various threads and literally hundreds of posts at this point CLEARLY demonstrate my forthrightness, honesty, and willingness to step up to the plate and confront whatever hard questions, flames, etc. people throw my way. People who can read these threads and question my HONESTY at this point cannot be swayed by any force of reason or available evidence, so I can't waste my time with these. Beyond that, I do believe that people have enough evidence at this point to believe that at least I'm doing my best to be honest.
Matt says, "IMO you either pull out the drill because it's convenient or you do it because there is no other way. now you want to tell people that it depends on the way you were feeling that week? that's a hard sell, best of luck." That's a pretty naive cheap shot, Matt. (No surprise, though; as others have noted in private emails to me, it's impossible to expect a reasonable discussion in these forums because quicky little cheap shots and flames are what these forums are about.) I have never given any indication at any time that my drilling is as utterly unprincipled and random as "the way [I was] feeling that week." And you set up a false dichotomy when you suggest that drilling is EITHER because you "feel like it" or because "there is no other way." There is a LOT of ground between those options. In general, like I did and have, people have principles that guide their use of the drill. The climbing community has a loosely overlapping consensus about many of the principles, but there are LOTS of fuzzy edges and loopholes to the mores that IN GENERAL guide us.
People make all sorts of drilling decisions based upon everything ranging from running out of time on a route to certain artistic qualities they perceive in drilling a few holes as opposed to other alternatives. And it is NEVER because there is "no other way," because the other way is ALWAYS to just not climb the route in the first place or go down. But, how many FA teams have EVER gone down because they determined that there was just too much drilling? Even the mighty Robbins justified his own drilling when he thought that the route was worth it (whatever that means).
Bottom line is that people have all sorts of reasons for drilling at any given moment. If we take climbing seriously, then we don't do it willy-nilly and in utterly unprincipled fashion. But nobody here has yet given even the start of a good argument to suggest that I did anything unusual, unprincipled, or wrong. In general we don't add holes to existing routes. But that general principle admits of many legitimate exceptions, as the history of climbing demonstrates again and again.
Answer my dilemma, and then there will be something more to talk about... maybe.
|
|
atchafalaya
Trad climber
California
|
|
Did your three rivets bypass a 120 foot lower/penji? I need to know to answer "your" dilemna. Sorry if I missed it, your posts are incredibly long.
|
|
Gabe
climber
San Clemente, CA
|
|
Atcha, yes he says he did above. It is thick in those posts.
Madbolter1, You care very little for this piece of stone you drilled up on if you have no attatchment to it being erased, or, worse, sport rooted. Sounds incredably sloppy.
As far as comparing WoS to WoC it is not the route, but your ethics linking one to the other. You can not convienintly shut the book on your past actions.
You sound very definsive when you explain why you drilled on hole world. Are you sure that still small voice isn't kicking you in the ............ Gabe
|
|
the Fet
Trad climber
: morF
|
|
The thought experiment:
"Imagine you come to a spot five feet of blank from the start of a new crack above you. Instead of a single rivet to span the distance to that crack, you see where the FA team did a penjii down 120 feet and over to a ledge, from which they traversed 100 feet across the wall, from which they climbed up 250 feet of wide, grungy, dripping cracks, to make another penjii back into the base of the crack that is now five feet away from you. Now, is it reasonable for you to perform a single-rivet "variation" of the FA team's heroics?"
According to your logic in another post above the thought experiment situation is probably not a legitimit variation of the route but an alteration of the existing route (i.e. it doesn't cover new rock). So *no* you shouldn't drill the rivet. You gotta think outside the box, you put a hex on a 4' sling and keep trying to flip it until it sticks :-) Maybe the FA party was determined to do the route with 0 holes... Maybe the FA party ran out of rivets and would be ok with adding one...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Hmmm... so unless I am attaching my own self image and self worth to whatever ends up happening to one of my routes, I must have sloppy ethics??? Amazing leap of logic.... All my training never prepared me for it.... How could I have not seen it before???
Wait... it's coming to me... ahhhh, yes: Problem is, you'll thereby have to include, as I noted above, Bridwell (among many others) in the same category.
It's impossible for me to give some of you the brain transplant obviously needed for you to understand the dilemma presented above. I haven't heard much in the way of intellegence on this particular thread so far. I must conclude that the various people who privately emailed me were right when they told me that this one was going to be a complete waste of time. So, I'm done.
Ok, children, you may now fight among yourselves.
|
|
bringmedeath
climber
la la land
|
|
F*#k all you... climbers fighting climbers. Someone goes and f*#ks these routes... then... i may claim the "real" fa on WEML...
All these climbers ethics go against eachother... follow what you believe is right... see where you end up... you still f*#ked up in someones eyes...
|
|
bringmedeath
climber
la la land
|
|
So if richard is so light... why did he drill BATHOOK holes on Ring of Fire which the FA on Nightmare on California Street filled with rivets???
More info please from both parties...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
You care very little for this piece of stone you drilled up on if you have no attatchment to it being erased, or, worse, sport rooted.
I don't believe you can say someone doesn't care about a piece of stone if they don't have attachment to what happens to a route they put up there.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
"To quote Harding, "I don't give a rat's ass what anybody does with the route." Honestly, what the route becomes over time has nothing whatsoever to do with the route Mark and I put up, the experience we had on it, why we climbed it, or the objective facts of the matter that concern the quality of our climbing. If somebody wants to erase the route, rap from Horse Chute and turn it into a sport climb, or whatever, that simply doesn't affect me because it doesn't affect OUR climb of the thing."
i think you miss the point entirely.
you talk about avoiding ego, but your perspective is framed around only the affect on you and your experience, not the route, not all other climbers, not the extrapolation of your ideas onto everyone else with a drill and what that would someday mean for the rest of us.
your above agruments, in which you claim to care little for what happens to a route after it is put up, be it your FA or someoine else's, conflict w/ the prevailing FA ethic as i understand it. you seem to be a magician when it comes to explaining yourself and claiming various justifications, but i think many people see it as something much more simple.
what if i drilled a bolt ladder on the salathe to avoid swinging into the hollow flake?
would that not also be on rock that was not a part of the original route?
wouldn't i be "climbing a completely different section of rock"?.
couldn't i say that "my rivets go up and [left] on completely different rock than the penjii that goes down and farther [left]... to provide an alternative way to reach a higher point..."?
couldn't i say that "if climbers do the penjii in this case, then it will be one route, and if they elect to use my few [bots], it will be a different route"?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
Mike, I very much respect you at least addressing my dilemma. So, I'm willing to contribute this additional post, although I do grow weary of this thread, since it's coming clear to me that we have said about all there is to be said on the subject at this point. I'm not so much leaving in a "huff" as in a sigh. :)
I disagree with your response to my dilemma, as I said, thinking that such a response draws the line too harshly. However, one thing has come clear so far, and that is that the consensus (at least among posters here, for whatever that's worth) seems to be that my rivets were a big mistake. I still don't agree, but I do stand duly chastised and humbled by the outrage.
It is of note to both you and Matt that, as bringmedeath points out earlier, some of our bathook holes on Ring of Fire were filled with retro rivets. The significance of this point is the when Mark and I did Ring of Fire, our EXPRESS goal was to leave nothing sticking out of the rock in pitches. People can moan all they want about how bathooks get degraded over time, but I have come to see over decades that such degradation is the exception rather than the rule. A well-drilled bathook hole, used with an appropriate hook, should last a very, very long time.
Our goal, therefore, was to create a route in which you couldn't look down at a machine bolt, a Zamac rivet, or ANYTHING about which you could say, "Yeah... that just might hold." I don't want to get drawn into another long debate on the merits or evils of bathooking. Let's just let it stand, shall we, that Mark and I had a particular objective in mind for the route, and the Nightmare guys filled our holes, thereby negating that objective.
I consider this a FAR worse violation of the "ethic" about retro rivets than anything I have ever done. Yet, prior to this post, and this largely in response to bringmedeath, I have never even mentioned, much less complained, about this. My point when I say "I don't give..." is demonstrated by what happened on Ring of Fire, as when Mark and I were done with the route, we were done. We had done what we set out to do, and we never expected the route to appear in any discussion, print, or reference of any kind--ever. Second ascent, other routes joining and leaving, and so on, just didn't and don't matter to us. But the point still stands that the Nightmare team filled our holes without regard to the original intent. My response: big deal.
To me, contrary to what some have gleaned from my posts, I have just seen too much of what goes on to get too upset about what people do on and to the big stone. It's clear to me that eventually every single feature on El Cap will have been touched by mankind, and that touching will occur in countless ways and according to various ethical perspectives. I keep saying "tempest in a teapot," not because I don't think that ethics matter AT ALL, but because I think climbing history has shown a lot of flexibility rather than rigidity in how ethical perspectives are APPLIED.
So, the summation of the matter for me is this: If people are convinced that I "f*#cked up," then I apologize. Honestly. I still think the whole debate is a tempest in a teapot, and that much worse things have been done to many other routes (including my own) than my little "transgression" (if indeed it was one). But I do stand impressed by the consensus that seems to have developed on this thread, however representative it might or might not be, and I will submit to it.
You win. I'm bad. Sorry. I'm not being trite to say it that way. Honestly, it's just that that's about the level of apology I think the "transgression" warrants. So, I give it sincerely, but it's not much.
All the best... good climbing!
|
|
JAK
Sport climber
Central NC
|
|
After reading through this whole thing, I have to think that unless Madbolter's drilling somehow made it impossible to climb the route as it was done FA, then everyone is making a big argument about surprisingly little.
But then, I'm just an (objective) greenhorn, so whadda I know.
|
|
JAK
Sport climber
Central NC
|
|
I won't dispute that - I'd prefer myself that people didn't drill unless absolutely necessary.
The trick is that necessary is, by and large, a judgement call as Richard (I'm assuming his name? I'm John, for those curious) pointed out, and apparently his judgement was to do a bit of it. The climbing community as a whole is generally governed by what I would describe as "consensus ethics", which is to say we sort of agree on a system to go along and get along. Under most circumstances, the general consensus as I understand it is the less drilling the better. It's not even a real issue in my world yet - I mostly climb sport or second on trad, so my only reall parallel is bolting.
Now, was Richard's drilling justified? Again, depends on who you ask, but that's been beaten to death. The only thing I'm really sure of is that this is a rather large argument about very little. Can you climb Hole World as it was originally done? Yes. Can you climb Winds of Change and use the variations of Hole World pitches? Yeah.
So why are nits even being picked? I'm pretty sure Richard realizes that most people would prefer he didn't drill rather than do so, but in the end it really hasn't caused any tangible harm. More to the point is the attitude change you note - but I think as long as the "less drilling preferred" mentality continues to prevail in the climbing world, I doubt that will be an issue. Each person will decide for themselves whether or not Richard's move was within standards, and if it was they'll be fine with it, and if it wasn't, they'll avoid the behavior.
I know what you're thinking: This won't stop the mentality from spreading. What about those people who think the drilling was ok?
Well, you're never going to get 100% onboard for anything. I don't think I need to spell it out for you. We just need to hope drillers die faster than new ones arise. You know, keep the population in check.
So closing, I'd say that this was a big hulabaloo about not much, but I do think justifiable points were raised on each side and everyone got a better understanding of the opposing views. The situation has come full circle, everyone's back where they started - I think we can move forwad now. Or up, as it were.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
i will concede that the whole conversation, in the context of these specific routes, is more or less pointless to almost everyone.
having said that, the fact remains that one cannot justify their impacts upon rock, either virgin rock or an existing line, by drawing a parallel to something that has been done in the past, even something done on a proud route by a proud climber.
pin scars have been intentionally beaten into seems so routes would go free, holds have been chipped/drilled, cracks have been bolted up, and hot pink lycra shorts, not to mention snake skin print full length tights, have been worn by grown men. what kind of world do we want to live in? some times you have to put your foot down and say that at least in general, you really don't respect that behavior, and you don't want to see it happen again.
i don't really care one bit if anyone changes their mind or says they are sorry about something that happened in the past, but i do care what happens in the future. in my one-man's opinion, drilling on (or adding easier/safer variations to) existing lines should at least be strongly discouraged, and should at least involve the permission of the FA party whenever they are known and alive and available for comment. all of that just seems pretty obvious to me.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Mountain climber
Anchorage, Alaska
|
|
Enough jibba jabba Matt, tell where I can get some of those snakeskin print tights.
|
|
JAK
Sport climber
Central NC
|
|
Permission from the FA party as an *obligation* seems pretty dubious to me unless the party owns the rock. Otherwise, one could do it out of respect for the FA or their route, but the very valid point remains that it's not his (the FA's) rock.
I will state now that I don't know the rules and regs of Yosemite. Haven't been, although I would like to get there one day. But from what I gather, drilling on it isn't expressly forbidden by NPS?
If that's the case (and do correct me if I'm wrong, as I very well could be), then really it's difficult for anyone to have anything truly effective to say on the subject - after all, the man was playing by all the posted rules, he just didn't adhere to one subset of the unwritten ones, which can be faulted (at the least) with not bothering to be written.
Etc.
The thread goes on.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
JAK,
You mean you didn't get a copy of the climbing rules?
They should have given you a copy when you got your climbing licence!
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
umm, don't know where to tell you to find them, but alas, i guess i could tell you who to ask.
as for you JAK, i guess if i don't agree w/ a sport climber in NC about such things, i can live w/ it.
|
|
JAK
Sport climber
Central NC
|
|
Not elitist at all Mike, much appreciated. Can't say as much for Matt, but we need not delve into that.
And you're right, my view certainly isn't affected by Big Wall climbs or FAs, which is part of the reason I'm offering it here. Somewhat akin to talking to someone who isn't in a relationship about said relationship, you're getting some input here from a perspective you might not normally see. Of course, what you make of that is up to you.
I can certainly appreciate from an uninvolved position that FA climbing and the "great lengths of preservation" involved mean a lot to some people, but that's kind of precisely the point. To provide an analogy from the sport world: If I climb a given route skipping certain holds, that may feel like a significant accomplishment to me. However, the next chap on likely won't care and may not even know.
Again, I kind of feel like we're sitting on the question: If both routes are perfectly climbable, what sin are we discussing? Defacement of rock? Aesthetics? The overlap of one into the other?
I mean, all things told, again, I would rather leave rocks as they are and let nature take its course - but then how do you take that philosophy to the aid camp and try to pitch it to the no doubt numerous people who have enjoyed aid routes?
I just find it hard to discern any consistency in saying, essentially "Alteration of the rock on public property is ok for FAs, but not for anyone else." It kind of sounds like "I may use these holds, but no one else may." to me.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!