Where does that sort of logic come from?

I first saw it described in:
Basic Rockcraft, by Royal Robbins, 1971, p.62
"THE FIRST ASCENT PRINCIPLE"
But he describes it in a more positive way.

second,third, twenty fourth ascents should try to emulate the first ascent or do it in a better style.

To grumble about routes done 40 years ago in swami belts with the old shoes and coffin nail bolts is not something to be taken seriously by serious climbers.

The person who changes or dumbs down a route is really the person who asserts their imaginary ownership over what others have had the sac and integrity to try and play by the routes own standards.

Tom Gerughty was perhaps the first to climb and protect a large, crackless expanse of Tuolumne rock. He demonstrated that bolts could be placed while free climbing, but not without difficulty. In 1966, Tom began climbing the lovely crystal dikes on the northwest face of Pywiack Dome. But Tom had an aversion to bolts and had little experience placing in them. Once in Yosemite, Tom stepped on a bolt in the presence of Sacherer. Frank yanked the rope so hard Tom nearly fell off the wall. Perhaps Tom learned the lesson too well. He trembled up and up on the dikes of Pywiack, unable or unwilling to stop, the drill dangling uselessly from his side. Dave Meeks and Roger Evja, his partners, waited for the 200 foot, slab splashing fall. Somehow, it never came. Tom captured the aesthetic plum, The Dike Route, on Pywiack, as well as the respect of numerous climbers who imagine leading the last pitch with two less bolts, since added with Tom's permission.

why is that? Where does that sort of logic come from?

I think this points out that the "law" of preserving the style of the first ascent is not enforced by the FA party; it is enforced by the local climbing community sometimes long after the FA.

And if the the local community thinks the style is bullsh#t?

Community style....ho hum, often leads to stasis and mediocrity.

I just go back periodically and chop the retro bolts that have been added to some of the FA's I was a part of.

Sad that there are those out there that need to add bolts to a route in order to bring it down to their level of ability.

Old Steve Petro's thoughts some 20 years ago surely apply here"


"If your shakey at the grade, stay off the route dude!"

Pussy's

I just go back periodically and chop the retro bolts that have been added to some of the FA's I was a part of.

The bolts were already added with FAist permission. Big difference lad. By permission from one of the FAist. Then repeatedly chopped. Never once chopped by either of the FAist that is.

What about retro-bolting North Peak couloirs and adding convenience anchors?

The thing I take issue with is the claim that 5.13 climbers running it out on 5.10's somehow creates this noble ethical standard that should be adhered and aspired to - especially when that ethic extends beyond the actual FA, to a kind of virtual ownership of the route. 5.13 routes could have existed long before they actually did, as proven by the level of bouldering being done back then. There's tons of x-rated 5.10's from that era. The honest statement of boldness, IMO, would have been routes near the actual difficulty level that those doing them were capable of, not 2-3 number grades below.

Is a 5.12 climber running out a 5.10 FA really expressing their "greatest amount of personal commitment"?

TH was not the one that did the chopping btw. Never.

No, I do understand that you needed to be a 5.12 (or better) climber to do those 5.10's. That's the problem.

Basically, the best climbers of that era were (and still are) asking everyone else to adhere to an ethical standard they themselves rarely (if ever) did.

Why, then, did the vast majority of bold routes of that era rarely, if ever, exceed easy 11?

How can we be sure the FA party on a runout route was really being bold, and not just stupid or stoned?

Don't tell me that I gotta do what you did, when you didn't really do what you're telling me I gotta do (climb at my personal limit on the run-outs).

Merely reiterating that claiming bold bolt-protected routes need to be respected and emulated when the vast majority of the existing ones weren't that bold for the FA party (because boldness is relative to the ability of the individual climber, who in most cases were climbing well below their actual ability).

I know the routes in question might never be popular, and might fade into obscurity (if they haven't already), but I believe it's possible that climbers and climbing might come full circle to the point where more climbers seek out the type of challenge they offer. That's probably the best reason to leave them as they are.

What retro bolting and bolts Gary?? No bolts atal. None. Never have been nor are there any now. Six stoppers and two pins total that can be pulled at any time by anybody Gary.

"Couloirs"? Singular Gary. Singular. Left or #1 Only.

Seems folks kind a like the idea Gary. They are still there after eight years. Received several notes and personal thanks for putting them up.

Got anymore bullshet claims Gary.

"I am scared of these routes."

And I'm saying that not every FA was for every person, either. Some of them shouldn't have been done in the style they're currently in, and being insisted on being left as.


Fair enough?

Can we argue over whether Fires are aid now?

One thing for sure is that if these run out slabs remain generations after the FAist are long gone, and pretty much every climber is no longer steeped in a long mentorship clanging around with hexes and learning the details of the heroic deeds by his / her predecessors, a better argument than "sac up" is probably going to be necessary.

Joe's premise is still false. The fact remains that many non-exceptional climbers established run out climbs near their limit and many more repeated such climbs.

I expect "you" not to require me to do what you yourself never did - run it out at your level.

...the best BUZZ i ever had in climbing was setting at the top of some rock after having pulled off some hideous run out. Such acts tend to make your confidence level soar like nothing else.

jgill nails it ......

GARY
Convenience Anchors

I am assuming you have not ever climbed T-Bolt nor Starlight nor any routes in Lee Vining etc. Oh and how about that El Cap or Half Dome or... Done anything on them?

Where are the run-out slabs that were at the top of the best climber's abilities?

Does the same claim apply to mountains?

What's the name of the 2-bolt x-rated 10b at the Needles that got retro-bolted, then the FA guy went back and accidentally chopped his own bolt and made it worse than it was before, so that now the first bolt is above, not below, the crux?

Always thought that was pretty funny

By the way, that's one of the best granite 10b's anywhere, it's a travesty that it's a death route - and yes, put up by a 5.13 climber

And I'm saying that not every FA was for every person, either. Some of them shouldn't have been done in the style they're currently in, and being insisted on being left as.

Fair enough?

Like it or not in the rock climbing world in most areas the FA owns the route.

I just think the sac up line in the sand will eventually lead to awful retro bolting of run out classics when everyone is dead or doesn't care and that some thoughtful reconsideration of easier random routes that really were run out on purpose or just soloed might relieve some of that pressure.

"Fact is, I don't know one of the old school run out guys who gave a rat's ass what others thought about their climbing."

If it is a personal experince with your sac on that bull
that you were riding why do you care how others climb up on that bull?

I'm basing my argument on your own (accurate) contention that you guys basically were 5.13 climbers

Tuolumne in its current state is basically a monument to the egos of climbers past.

Tuolumne in its current state is basically a monument to the egos of climbers past.

...And not just Tuolumne, either..

And certainly some of the routes should never be touched, as a monument to that era. But all of them? Just because that's how they were first climbed?

unfortunately, a lot of those climbs that you (or others) did, that were revelatory experiences for you, are completely off-limits for me. I don’t even aspire to do them, because that’s not the way I like to climb.

They're, unfortunately, not going to listen - probably the clearest indicator that what's really being addressed here is male ego and male insecurity.

Ksolom, thanks for berating granite girl for her honesty and for speaking her mind.

not as hard as old climbers watching youngins climb these days !;-D