Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2013 - 11:18pm PT
|
To paraphrase US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who was famously speaking of something perhaps somewhat akin to climbing:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core trad"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.
|
|
Mar'
Trad climber
Fanta Se
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2013 - 12:07am PT
|
Those among us who learned nutcraft do have a unique appreciation of doubling it up and running it out. Sometimes the only way to keep the pump at bay. haha!!
Other that eschewing a number of redundant martinis and insincere trolling, I have read every dang post leading up to this and I hope we get our "surprise" on reaching 1000 posts, Tarbussier. Keeping this together while serial-wrestling a few relentless bulldogs all along is due to something really whole and utterly commendable.
I rarely visit this forum, but this is a gem of a thread, for the most part.
I started climbing in '72 in Idyllwild and remember NOBODY at Jtree during Easter vacation.
It's all so taoist to me and it always has been. I didn't even know about that classic Chouinard catalog with the Chinese image on the cover for many years. Of course, I knew about the article inside it! It's all so personal but also very impersonal at the same time, inasmuch as the climbing came together in the '70s as it did out of international and even ancient traditions.
Climbing as a Spring Rite in China has been in observance for millennia. The clean-climbing ethic is a direct transplant from the British tradition. The slavic climbing tradition, in terms of pure hard-as-nails grit is unparalleled, be it rock or ice. None of this should be overlooked.
The medium is utterly impersonal, but there are those who might not climb but for the love they feel at the thought of what that very fragile yet unforgiving vertical realm has come to mean for them which is utterly beyond meaning. Not when you're young— it comes a little later.
People don't know that the nonpsychological is spiritual.
It is an inside game~ and that's not to say it is a product of intellectualism at all. I never had a reason— it was just time. And when It's time, it just is. The rules are a product of what's inside us mixed with what's happening in the local milleu.
In the '70s, ethics and the style was just as iconoclastic as it seems today after the psychological break-throughs of the '60s in California, but the proving-ground of restraint and audacity was on a whole new scale as it was settling out. But it was and is still an inside game.
If there wasn't a true connection of love between the living earth and awareness, there would have been no recoil from the damages of chrome-moly steel driven into granite. Enter chock-stones.
But don't jump to the conclusion that a climbing style is defined by equipment or even an ideal.
There is an inner discipline at work employing extremes of self-minimization and audacity that enables finding out the possible. Youngsters don't need to analyze this. Where an ultimate respect comes to terms with discovering possibility is brought to bear by adaption— you know, that pesky survival trait.
Finding out the possible by adaption to an external condition on it's terms with precise intent provokes an understanding of reality~ in this case …of what real climbing still is.
Is this about climbing? Maybe. This is not an ideal. It is an operation carried out in fact at the expense of the psychological, a modicum of skill and judgement (and we all know where that comes from).
Most of us know the feeling of being beside ourself in the course and/or aftermath of really climbing. It just happens. There's no formula for attaining that presence. Its result has nothing to do with— rather it is the very antithesis of skill, style, gear, ethics and psychology.
It's nonpsychological. It's a discipline.
In the rush to push limits of technical difficulty and secure safety apriori for that action as an end, the chances for realizing possibility inherent in actual discovery of the real is often lost. Not that pre-placing bolts en rappel on a very sketchy and otherwise unprotectable ice-route isn't acceptable by todays standards by been-there-done-that tradtsers. …just sayin'
For me, even though I don't always carry a gear sling, the real deal is …not less than real, and lies beyond notions of a pastime to occupy oneself. That's just been my lifelong take on the practice of really climbing.
Now to make it as simple as possible, it doesn't matter what we do or how we do it, or even why. But in hindsight, we can ask ourselves— and we should reflect on whether in our course we have actually been a match for reality, a partner, an equal coeval with creation, not settling for furtively or casually angling towards recreation; in that In overstepping our limitations, in touching the extreme boundaries of man's world, we have come to know something of its true splendor.
I love whatever it is …and it loves me❤
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 29, 2013 - 12:36am PT
|
Thanks fellas!
Warbler: I'm not so sure Tommy is being tongue-in-cheek, but it sure would go some ways in explaining the discrepancy.
I just can't imagine after having grown up under Pop Caldwell's wing that he would miss this distinction.
Note to the readers: it's worth rereading these last five posts a few times each, or at least … very slowly … the first time through. I'd recommend the same for Tommy's article.
I had to read Tommy's reference to those routes in Switzerland and terming them sport climbing a few times through to be sure I was comprehending his intent. I just can't tell.
*RGold: I have no choice (or desire), but to sign off on what you wrote 100%.
*Mar: though probably abstract to many readers, I very much like what you just put out!
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2013 - 12:50am PT
|
I guess I should add that the leader of a route protected by drilling from stances endures, among all the other tribulations, the exhaustion of standing on small holds while drilling. No subsequent ascent has to deal with this challenge.
On the other hand, the leader drilling from hooks also might get to rest, and so, having not made a free ascent of the route, has to return for that---of course by then with a certain amount of beta. Not as clean as it used to be, but there you have it.
As most of you know, bolted routes in Europe come with an "obligatory" grade, which is how hard you have to climb if you use all the bolts for aid, as well as a genuine free grade that assumes the bolts are only for protection. When the bolts are as spaced out as they are on some of the big limestone crags in Europe, there may be little distinction between the obligatory grade free grades.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 29, 2013 - 01:04am PT
|
Okay kids,
Just for flavor and also to illustrate what has just been said,
I'm going to follow-up and underscore some of what Rich Goldstone just wrote with an excerpt from a history that will appear in the upcoming guidebook to the California Needles.
This is a passage which I wrote describing personal experience with some ground up climbing using hooks to drill bolts in 1983 and is intended to flesh things out a bit:
West Side Story is a route to which I contributed much grist, but I was not to be present for the completion. These were steep face climbs, steep enough to warrant using hooks for some of the bolt placements.
A pitch or two off the deck, I believe at the start of the third pitch, I left the belay, underclinging and laybacking a 5.8 flake; after that I headed out into a steeper section of rock with decent features for 5.9/10 climbing: I was a ways out, and it was time to drill, but I couldn’t let go to drill and the only hook placement I could find was a tiny little flake no bigger than a thumbnail and it was just thick enough to accept the tip of a Leeper flat. It also had to be weighted at a 45° angle, so it was pretty tricky to get in the bolt without disrupting my stance, as I was leaning diagonally off the tiny flake and standing on smears.
When I finished the hole I pushed the bolt in with my thumb very carefully, then as I slowly cranked down with the wrench to tighten the hanger into the rock, the flake snapped and I swung on to the bolt. We were getting pretty good at drilling and sometimes we’d get greedy and try to do a whole pitch, or a good part of it, consecutively putting in the bolts without returning to the belay for a rest, so with this in mind I proceeded up some more terrain and when I began to feel a little bit run out, having pushed plenty far out, I found a stance: pretty steep, a bit smeary for the feet and again I started drilling away, but things weren't going so well: the drill bit was dull and it began binding and I started complaining.
I was about ready to pitch off my weary stance, when Mike shouted: “quick … I'll put a Leeper point and a fresh bit on to your trail line and you can pull it up, smack the hook in the hole and start over. It worked. Then after completing that bolt placement, I continued climbing and got about 15 or 20 feet out, started crimping and laybacking a diagonal edge, opting to point my right toe down along the edge, when my foot popped and I sailed out of there for 30’ or 40’. I banged my ankle a little bit, and I was pretty shook up. That was it for me on that route; I lowered to the ground where Mari took a good look at my rattled nerves, handed me a water bottle and politely suggested I forfeit my dance card for the rest of the day.
As it turns out, it was then time for my perennial sojourn in Yosemite Valley, so I departed for the season, never to return to join in the new route development in the Needles.
*Yes, we would re-climb these routes from bottom to top after having established the bolts and this would be listed as the date of the first ascent.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2013 - 01:23am PT
|
You made it! TraD ALL THE WAY! This was like getting to see a total eclipse of the moon or sun, take your pick. The last thread there, #999, is beautiful.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 29, 2013 - 01:31am PT
|
This is a 2008 Patagonia, Inc. Reprint of what appears to be a catalog from 1974, Sanddollar Press, Santa Barbara, California
(the price list is stated effective from March 15, 1974 through June 15, 1974)
*This is not intended as a springboard to rehash all that we have discussed on this thread in terms of environmental effects of other trad or sport.
*It's primarily here for historical reference and because it addresses the spirit of trad which is minimization of artifice as a means to a subtle experiential distinction.
*Note there is no mention of rappel tactics: it was printed before this was a consideration and I would much prefer if we as a discussion group refrain from jumping back on that trampoline.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2013 - 08:00am PT
|
I don't know how Tarbuster did it, but somehow he has managed to guide a thousand-post meditation on the nature of trad climbing without having the wheels fall off the bus under the influence of trollers, flamers, naysayers, bullies, who-gives-a-damners, ad hominem attackers, and all the other myriad characters who typically gang up to derail sustained serious conversations.
Partially, it is a tribute to the Supertopo membership who are willing to participate thoughtfully or else are willing to let those who are interested have their conversation without feeling the need to undermine it. But even here, Tarbuster's even-handed posts as self-appointed moderator (what a thankless task!) kept the thing going, alive, and on-topic for what seems to me like some kind of world record for internet coherence.
Well done Mr. T!
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 29, 2013 - 10:37am PT
|
No worse ... for the wear over here fellas!
I'll take a bow & tip my hat to you!!!
|
|
wstmrnclmr
Trad climber
Bolinas, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2013 - 01:10pm PT
|
Good stuff keeps rolling on!
On the "morals" section from the catalogue: Morals and ethics could be a good starting point to continue with (i.e. Higgins' update from '06 from his "Tricksters and Tradionalists" article and the last paragraph in particular here in case one can't go back and find http://www.tomhiggins.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=19);. Since they are constructs of the majority in any society,and are subject to change as the society changes, so it is with the climbing community. And by the looks of things, trad, as defined (hopefully we're there) by this thread looks to be in the minority. Where as Chouinard and Frost's views were more of the majority back then, they are not now. Others styles of climbing have moved to the fore. And a narrow definition as defined by them then is obviously much broader now. And when morals and ethics change, obviously the definition of what is "right and wrong" does too. In other words, just exactly who the tricksters and traditonalists are must also change. So in keeping with what I believe Tarbuster is trying to do, not judging styles, lest we fall into the mire, but trying to simply define trad and it's place among the community at large. And further, to preserve it going forward into the climbing future. Keepers of the flame as it were. Because, being in the minority, we don't have the numbers to enforce but can only lead by example.
Jeez, I wish I were a better writer!
Now back to the nomenclature.....
One of the nifty little piccolo's of pure trad (by the threads definition) is the use of "Stance grading". I haven't seen it mentioned here but it is definitely a product of trad climbing and I would argue, a strong example of the trad ethos and the use of bolts in that sense. Stance grading meaning the grading, on a scale of 1-10 where one hand drills from a stance and the stance itself is then graded by consensus of the fa team. Much more fun and communal then grading the climb overall.
Mar: Great. The reason I climb is that it is the only form of anything I do which brings me to a more inner place. The form being specifically run slab fa'ed by specific artists whose form I feel brings me closest to pure adventure. My whole world reduced to Davinci's Vetruvian Man. And observing others in that same place (to wit, watching my friend Jaywood, totally committed on pure, sustained 5.9 friction on the apron just last weekend, so in the moment that he bypassed the only bolt and belay for 100'clipping the first bolt of the next pitch before I reminded him of where he was because there was only 10' of rope to stop him further movement (and thus, unknowingly creating a direct variation to a lost classic). And a great example of the arbitrary nature of numbers and rating of something as nebulous as the mind's role in our game.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 30, 2013 - 08:15am PT
|
Please hold those thoughts Western Climber!
(I think your handle actually means West Marin Climber? At any rate, it's really hard for my voice control software to grapple with unorthodox linkages of consonants and vowels)
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 30, 2013 - 08:16am PT
|
Going to have to recant my characterization of Patrick Compton as a troll!
Sorry about that Patrick.
Although I may have wished you'd gotten a better sense of our position on "old trad" and our motives in defining it, I can see you were sincere in your attempt to answer the essential question put forward in the OP.
I got to thinking: is Patrick's definition what he wants it to be?
Or is it simply the working definition which he and his climbing buddies rely upon as needed?
Then I reread one of his posts and he did use the word "WE".
So I've been continuing the informal survey.
To cut to the chase, there is a reason why older climbers, those who are still active such as Donini, David Bloom, and Dingus McGee have essentially dispensed with trad-centric terminology altogether and simply call it all climbing. Not that they don't understand distinctions of style along the way.
I had a long conversation with a younger (35-year-old) climber here in the Boulder area who has been at it for 12 years. I can tell you it wasn't easy to pin down the definition of trad and it took us a long time to wrestle the concept out into the light. But there were a lot of parallels with what Patrick has experienced. Mind you, this is Boulder, the birthplace if you will, in tandem with Smith Rock, of the uptake with sport climbing and the great change known as sport climbing in the USA. See Christian Griffith, et al. . THE GREAT CHANGE ha ha!
The short of it is that for many young climbers out here trad is this huge umbrella with a whole bunch of subsets. And I checked him on this and they definitely do use the term TRAD. Head pointing is now pretty much just a subset of trad for them. Oddly, for me perhaps, this fellow underscored what Patrick's sentiments were about Indian Creek. Namely that it is almost outside of trad due to the fixed anchors everywhere; this even though it is all about gear usage.
Basically for these guys trad is anything involving placement of protection and all the related tactics. Add to that perhaps a certain element of uncertainty and adventure. Like it or not that's the working definition for them, in this locale. They're very committed to the idea that one must place one's own protection whether or not there is prior knowledge from pre-inspection. This fellow referred to the end of this continuum simply as "full tactics trad". I.e. everything we see happening on El Capitan.
He also concurred with what many supertopo folks did on this climb that was touted in a magazine as trad somewhere in the British Isles and repeated by a woman. Namely that she head pointed the route, but apparently a lot of the gear was in situ: to my interviewee, since the gear was mostly in place (whether fixed pin or nut or cam), this was more like sketchy sport climbing than honest head pointing where gear is placed from one's rack exclusively. The facts of her gear placement perhaps not coming off of her rack during the red point isn't as important as the idea that the new generation sees fully preplaced gear as nothing other than sport climbing on gear.
They are really into the original concept of on-sight ground-up leading as the purest form of trad. Again, much like the trad definition of old, it's a continuum. But as Patrick was trying to tell us, frankly the same as MH2 intimated in one of his posts: by the time you add fixed anchors on top of every pitch and hammer down the fresh on-sight experience even further with super detailed gear lists, as in Indian Creek, you're moving further away from a strict experience of on-sight trad climbing and commitment.
So the deck has been reshuffled: it's broader but different kinds of disqualifications apply. I've got a good hunch this is why the old guys just toss it all out. I mean if head pointing is good trad but Indian Creek on-sight even without a gear list perhaps is not, where is the consistency?
Head pointing is trad: while ground up even on-sight leading at Indian Creek somehow falls short of the mark! It's really a mess I tell you.
Let's explore the head pointing allowance. It was actually trad guys in the early 90s, factually going all way back to the early 80s with ex-pat Brit Alex Sharp, who started head pointing in Eldorado. So since they were trad, by proxy what they were doing was trad. And head pointing is committing that's for darn sure, because by definition protection is usually really sparse as are fixed anchors if not completely absent. This is likely why, when I asked a young climber here in Boulder eight years ago what he was up to and he said to me "hard trad", that head pointing had become, to his mind trad and by this he definitely meant head pointing specifically.
Another example about the Indian Creek shtick: right here on supertopo, one of our cherished old guys, crunch, once characterized the Indian Creek lines as vertical treadmills. He prefers adventure. Back to the young man whom I spoke with yesterday: his thing was that trad does require an element of either the unknown or of commitment or both, so ironically one of his stipulations harkens back to what I said about "walking off the back" ... as characterizing a trad ideal. He elaborated by saying no matter what happens in Indian Creek, you can just aid up to the anchor and get all your toys back and go home. He likes to think trad really does require one to summit! Well a lot of my old school friends wouldn't argue with that sentiment!
So I asked him about Yosemite Valley and all those short free climbs which were developed by Barry Bates and the Stonemasters. He said, "yeah, I think Lumpy Ridge here in Estes Park is more trad than a lot of Yosemite cragging, because climbs at Lumpy generally require one to summit and that's the only way they are going to complete the route and get all their gear back before they go home. He even went so far as to say that cragging isn't actually very good trad! Again, I presume this was predicated on potential lack of commitment or adventure in ordinary cragging.
It's really an alphabet soup anymore, usage seems to be a mess frankly and again depending on locality, age of the interpreter and so forth.
While I do believe that we did a good job of characterizing what trad really meant and should continue to mean, it appears that in many localities that train has left the station and for what looks like a dozen years or so by now. Many of you may recall I suspected this and stated as much upthread.
I'm going to work this a little bit more: stay tuned!
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2013 - 10:55am PT
|
Tar,
Thanks for the clarification. Admittedly, I was a bit harsh and therefore trollish with my response to your IC trip photos.
I'll repost what I had written for context:
My personal perspective is that any route that takes gear (enough that you need to place it correctly or risk major injury or death) is Trad. What is being purported on the links you posted and somewhat in this thread is the idea that only ground-up, 'adventure climbing' is truly trad. This simply isn't true anymore, and it has a lot to do with physical performance pushing the grades.
Modern trads are pushing mental and physical limits, so onsighting and lowering without working and placing a minimum of bolts or cleaning cracks for gear is impossible for a minimum of safety. The Dawn wall siege is a good example. Those guys are doing v10 and up moves, run out 20-30'. This level of 5.14 trad climbing simply doesn't happen onsight, ground up. Cracks needed cleaned, sometimes ticked for hand and gear placements, the odd bolt placed; for example, Honnold on Gift from Wyoming. In general, risk versus gain needs to be assessed. Some, including the link author, will say this is a slippery slope to sport climbing, but this is untrue. Sport climbs have bolts 6-10', whether the section needs it or not. There is still a very high degree of risk in these climbs while maintaining a high level of need for physical ability.
Then, the practice formerly known as trad becomes adventure climbing. A proud tradition to be sure, but now an aspect of trad and an aspect of the larger sport as a whole. As you have said, a point on a continuum. At this point, adventure climbing may have more in common with alpine climbing than modern trad because the grades are less important than the adventure, risk, and well... just surviving!
In the next several posts it was discussed that:
'adventure climbing' probably better defined as 'ground-up' climbing,
and Warbler made a valid point that Trad should remain what it originally was, and what new methods evolve should have their own names.
IC is notable in 'trad' world in that it is really very safe and predictable. If one completes a 5.10 like Supercrack or 3am, they could be tempted to proclaim themselves a 5.10 trad climber. In this case, it really means they have the fitness and skill to maintain perfect jams repeatedly. Placing the gear safely requires a bare minimum of skill, and a fall with gear at even below your feet shouldn't have serious consequences.
As you said, this is much different experience than going on a 5.10, ground-up with a full rack on unpredictable terrain, or traditional trad. Interestingly, sportly bolted slab routes in Tuolumne on 1/4, hand drilled pins with 30' runouts are, in a sense, a lot more 'trad', dangerous and scary, despite not carrying and placing gear.... and high-ball bouldering, well, that is just crazy.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 30, 2013 - 11:45am PT
|
Thanks Patrick,
But to clarify your last post: was this meant primarily to address the Indian Creek schism inasmuch as it is essentially seen as "soft trad" by yourself and the fellow with whom I spoke yesterday?
Meaning, is that pretty much all you are addressing for the moment or are you saying any more than this?
[edit] (that was kind of rhetorical: I know you are saying more).
So I did read you correctly that you were being a little facetious with my reportage on the Northern Arizona guys as categorically climbing trad in Indian Creek. Thanks for copping to that! It was pretty clear to me.
What was more important to me, rather than calling you out on it, was to point out that our definition of trad, the old one if you will, just doesn't preclude Indian Creek from being trad.
What's interesting about all of this, is that we are pretty much just tracking usage changes of the term trad in the bulk of this thread. If you look at the new usage of the term trad as characterized by yourself and the young climber with whom I spoke yesterday, what is interesting to me is that although the ground-up limitation is being completely eschewed when appealing to the new definition of trad, (meaning head pointing and pre-inspection is now allowed or included in the definition of trad) it's the sense of commitment and/or the unknown which is still elevated, no? In this we have common ground I believe when comparing the old definition with the new. Not that we need to find common ground, but this is to say there's the net overlap which is consistent throughout the migration of the definition from the old to the new.
For our purposes the Indian Creek omission from the context of modern trad just helps to highlight this current focus on trad's commitment [plus difficulty] factor doesn't it?
Just trying to clarify what we're building on here.
To my mind we are grappling with perhaps five different things in this thread:
1) what was the old definition of trad?
2) how can we best celebrate what that meant and let's try to characterize its intrinsic qualities in terms of the experience it affords the climber (really my main thrust at the outset)
3) what is the new definition of trad, how consistent is it throughout the climbing community (my current focus)
4) has anything been lost by the new definition usurping the old (Warbler and RGolds concern, echoed by myself for sure)
5) how can we best celebrate what the new definition means and best characterize its intrinsic qualities in terms of the experience it affords the climber (I presume this to have been your main thrust throughout the thread from the outset)
I find all of this quite interesting actually.
I don't know if what we are really doing here is venturing into linguistics or sociology or what, but it is true that language does drive or at the least inform perception, motive and goal. I believe this is one of the tenets of linguistics. It's also perhaps one of the key pieces of insight which might be available to us within the context of this discussion. And I don't mean just that language informs things like perception, but more specifically how is it informing the modern evolution of climbing. Certainly we can turn the question around and say how is the modern evolution of climbing informing the changes in language, specifically regarding this evolution of usage of the term trad. One can never be certain whether the tail is wagging the dog or the reverse!
I know that's a lot: but in a nutshell this is what's in my head.
Roy
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2013 - 11:58am PT
|
Over 1000 posts and you guys are still trying to convince yourselves you know WTF you're doing on this planet?
:-)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2013 - 12:00pm PT
|
from the Introduction to Climber's Guide to Yosemite Valley Steve Roper, 1971
"LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO CLIMBING"
Far from being nihilists, Yosemite climbers take an active interest in discussing the future of their sport. Those who have been climbing for any length of time have noticed a marked change in the attitude of both new climbers and the public. Climbing is rapidly becoming an acceptable activity, rather than a totally insane avocation. Climbing has already become an "in" sport, as has happened to both skiing and surfing. Climbers who wish to preserve the basic ideals of climbing often speculate, "Look what happened to skiing and surfing," and, "Let's don't have it happen to us." Discussions will soon revolve around the central question, "How did it happen to climbing and who's guilty?" Guidebook writers, climbing schools, publicity seekers who notify the media in advance of a climb--perhaps many are responsible.
Beyond this basic question are scores of other controversial topics of discussion. Some of the more interesting ones concern topos, crack ruination and blank-wall climbs.
Topos are highly detailed schematic drawings of routes. Designed to supplement or even replace the written description, topos are controversial in that they tend to make climbing a bit easier on the brain. Routefinding problems are simplified; one knows just where to expect a fixed pin or an off-route arch. They encourage climbers onto difficult routes because of their unshakeable belief in the topo. Some topos have listed the actual pitons used per pitch. Topos assure speed records; they also lessen responsibility. No more querulous statements such as, "I'll just look around this corner," only, "Here we are and where the hell's the belay bolt." In other words, part of the adventure of climbing is removed. Topos are not used in this guidebook for the reasons mentioned above and also because this size book is impractical for them (topos are usually drawn on large sheets of paper).
Granite cracks can hardly be thought of as fragile and yet on some popular routes it looks like a jack hammer has been employed. Chrome-moly pitons are responsible, as is the American habit of removing all pitons. This habit came about by the belief that each party should find the route in its natural state. This is hardly applicable now. Using climbing nuts solved some of the problems, but perhaps pitons made of soft iron (so that climbers will not be tempted to remove them) should be left in place, as in the Alps. In places where fixed pitons are impractical, due to the already ruined cracks, bolts will have to be used. The solution, whatever it may be, is sure not to please everyone. At present the ruined crack problem exists on only a few score routes.
In the ego-search for new routes, climbers have lately taken to finding exceptionally tenuous lines up "blank" walls. This has led to an increase in bolting and has opened up the possibility of new routes every few yards. There are many who decry this attitude, feeling that the technological aspect of bolting is in direct conflict with the traditional concept of climbing. Is climbing progressing?
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 30, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
|
Well darn it Werner!
I mean jeepers: you never tell us what we are doing here so we just have to make it up as we go along!!!
Stupid Americans. Ha ha.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2013 - 12:07pm PT
|
I like your threads Roy.
You always do very fine job of keeping them interesting.
Kudo to you for your fine efforts .....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2013 - 12:13pm PT
|
'It is normal for each generation of climbers to think they have attained the ultimate standards and that there is nothing left to be done. Surely that is not yet the case on the main White Mountain cliffs, while detailed explorations of the lesser crags has barely begun. But one is still left to wonder what "firsts" will remain for ambitious climbers of 2078 on cliffs such as Cathedral Ledge.
Even if all the possibilities for "firsts" do eventually become exhausted, that does not mean the sport will die. While this history has been concerned with those involved in the exploratory aspects of the sport--the discovery of new cliffs, new climbs, of new limits of technical difficulty--the vast majority of climbers over the years have been content to repeat the established routes. They have been concerned with exploring their own personal frontiers or simply interested in enjoying exhilarating activity in beautiful surroundings. For these climbers the thrills and joys of the sport will always be present.'
Al Rubin
From the history section of Cannon, Cathedral, Humphrey's and Whitehorse; A Rock Climber's Guide by Paul Ross and Chris Ellms, 1978
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!