Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 136 of total 136 in this topic |
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Aug 11, 2006 - 01:46pm PT
|
Re: Ethics
On other threads, the topic of ethics on the big stones has come up. There seems to be incredulitiy among some of the climbers on this forum that using a hammer and chisel to rock has not always been an accepted and widely practiced technique for everyone on big wall first ascents.
In my big wall book, I wrote a few short paragraphs about ethics. In it, I discuss the concept of rock sculpting as "poor style in any case."
To me, there is a big difference between scraping a seam with a chisel or a Lost Arrow, or tapping a loose flake with a hammer, and actually using both tools at once: the hammer upon the chisel upon the rock. It something my peers and I just did not do as a general practice. The chisel I carried on the big stones was purposely blunted with a grinder. It's purpose was to mash in heads, not to sculpt the rock.
I can't recall each and every placment I ever made, but I am certain that I never created a hook placement with a hammer and chisel to create difficulty, much less a series of hook placements, just so I could get a higher "rating". It's an absurd concept to me, and not in the realm of what the sport of big wall climbing meant to me at all. And I can speak for many of my peers of the 80's, some of whom are no longer with us.
Regarding copperheads, I do remember trenching a head in a blank piece of rock once. Walt and I were climbing the initial pitches of the North American Wall. We had been hired to fix ropes for the peregrine falcon folks so they could go gather some eggs (this was after the peregrines moved their nest from the El Cap Tree area to a small ledge near the NA) . We didn't bring a bolt kit, and a large flake on one of the first pitches had fallen off, creating a five foot blank section with no placements. To get past the blank section, I chisseled a #2 head placement in completely blank rock. It took less time and effort than to drill a rivet, and it held fast for us to get by.
But it felt really bad to do so; clearly it was defiling the rock. I knew the head would soon get chewed up by subsequent ascents, and become a big mess, so Walt and I went back later and replaced the chisseled head with a rivet.
On the other hand, I do remember times when I had the opportunity to enhance the rock to maintain difficulty on the first ascents, but didn't. One was on the Flight of the Albatross, on the pitch above the Canoe. After a series of shallow beaks and lousy heads up a 2" corner, with a bad fall potential onto the Canoe ledge, I came to a section of the corner with no seam at all. It would have been a simple matter to trench a single head placement in the shallow corner to get past the section, and it would have been quite secure. For me, that is. It would have been much more secure, in fact, than any of the other garbage placements that I had been ascending on. Continuing above the placement were another string of body weight placments. But with future ascents, the manufactured placement would have gotten more and more ratty, and the pitch would become more and more dangerous and difficult. So I drilled. Without the drilled placement, I could have probably given the pitch the "coveted" A5 rating. But that's really bullsh#t, don't you think? The placement was not a natural one, so the difficulty would have been completely manufactured.
Another time I was tempted to use the hammer to chisel to rock was on the Kali Yuga. But with Walt, a stickler with purity, there was no chance. It was on a pitch up high on the route, below the Snoopy, a shallow left facing corner with sporadic natural grooves in the seam. It would have been fun and easy (AND secure, mind you) to line the corner with #1 and #2 heads, but every third one (or so) would have had to be trenched with the hammer and chisel. So instead there is now a rivet every third or so placement. The rivets on the pitch bothered me, but for the longevity of the route, it is a better thing, methnks (higher on the same pitch there is a few rivets in a row where there are natural placments, but on the FA there was a 15 foot high, five inch think vertical detached piece of rock that I couldn't even touch, lest it fall and kill Walt directly below. When he let it fall while seconding the pitch, some natural placments in the corner were revealed).
I can say with confidence that I WOULD remember crafting any placements with a hammer and chisel on difficult pitches. It never happened, because it was a established and recognized taboo, especially on first ascents, where we felt we had the responsibilty to create a route that would last, not be artificially more difficult for future ascents, and utilize the natural features. The hole count concept reflected the fact that we were looking for natural lines, and assumed an integrity on the part of the hole counter that we did not "cheat" by not counting other manufactured placements.
Some people have mentioned, quite correctly, that big wall ethics are esoteric and can only be understood by participants. In reality, it is a deep personal question, and reflects a core respect for the rock and for what it naturally offers.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 01:51pm PT
|
Once again John you have failed to address the issue of long term viability of a route that continues to require a hammer and therefore is persistantly eroded.
For you ethics are a short term consideration. You are only concerned with your own ascent.
Ethics is a term that recognizes how your actions affect others.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 01:57pm PT
|
Ethics is a term that recognizes how your actions affect others.
I like that ..................
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 11, 2006 - 02:06pm PT
|
Ethics to me involves the question of what is right, and what is wrong.
Minimum impact seems right, contriving difficulty on a piece of nature so others will think you are a bad-ass seems wrong.
To me, anyway.
|
|
John Vawter
Social climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 02:16pm PT
|
Thank you John for that eloquent statement. It clarifies for me my uneasiness with the thought of using hammer and chisel to take crystals out of the rock to create or enhance a hook placement. I always thought, as you state, that the gray area isn't that gray, though it may take a few minutes of thought sometimes to sort it out.
What we sometimes lose sight of is that the temptation to alter the rock by creating a placement is not always to reduce our anxiety. Sometimes we are tempted to increase our anxiety by foregoing the rivet or bolt, and to make the route "harder." That is just as unnatural, contrived, and therefore undesirable, as placing a chicken bolt. The bottom line "rule", if you will, is not to use the hammer and the chisel at the same time to alter the rock.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 02:25pm PT
|
John,
Do you believe a line up the apron in the vicinity of WoS could be climbed otherwise? Given they climbed SoD and the pitches above WoS "conventionally" I still can't escape the impression that the line dictated the means. I certainly can understand people not deciding/believing no line there could be legit, but that's very different than saying those lines are legit and the problem is simply the way they did it - that unavoidably begs the question of could anyone do it substantially different. Seems like the most important distinction of all to me. My impression from Ammon's and Christian's comments is the answer is no - anyone making that journey is going to be forced to make pretty much the same [ethical] decisions Mark and Richard did.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 02:28pm PT
|
thanks for those clarifications john, but i still don't really understand-
what about the fact that you can alter on a "microscopic" level, and therefore on susequent ascents, nobody will be able to visually identify when, or whether, the rock has been altered?
after all, isn't what really matters most whether or not other people can tell what you have or have not done?
...cause when i read pete's posts in those threads (where he talks about how hard and scary the hooking on WoS is, and he says you can't see any evidence of the microscopic enhancements anyway, and he repeatedly says that R&S have been "too honest" wrt the climb), that's what i am hearing about what he seems to think.
[note: this post was slightly enhanced after the fact- just being honest...]
|
|
John Vawter
Social climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 02:42pm PT
|
Matt, it's just as bad because it's a contrivance, and because the next party can't find the placement. In fact, the alterations may have weathered away by now. If they can't find them, what does the subsequent party do? Do they create a new hook placement or place a rivet?
And to Healy, although I think you were addressing your comment to JM, of course it can be climbed in different style. A bolt or rivet can be placed instead of an enhanced hook. There were only, what, 2 to 8?
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 02:49pm PT
|
Deuce brings up a good distinction, whether it is right to alter the rock with hammer and chisel. I believe that Ron is saying if you are not making each and every placement, hammerless for future ascents, then you truly are not looking out for the future. Both good points.
What is interesting to me is this. 25 years after the WoS ascent there are NO visble signs of modification, and the only evidence of their passing, except for the bolts and rivets. Nobody can say whether this would have been the case, say shortly after their ascent. But aside from right and wrong isnt this what we are striving for? Reduced signs of our passing?
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 03:01pm PT
|
what is the point of saying "except for the bolts and rivets" there is no sign of their passing?
are you trying to be ironic?
did you want them to leave an educational sign for tourists, like in the "do we need really this" thread?
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 11, 2006 - 03:04pm PT
|
healyje-
It is not my place to comment on other people's ethics, and my statements regarding Wings of Steel in other forum topics are primarily an attempt to let others understand what the framework of the route's criticism were at the time.
A natural path up any piece of stone is only in the eyes of the beholder, different for everyone. A featureless spire in the desert may offer a tempting ascent, but what if it requires a bolt ladder from bottom to top?
On the other hand, if it only entailed natural climbing with natural stone bollards for the rappels (the three pitch Organ Rock in Utah was like this), the questions become easier to answer.
Still, it's all grey, isn't it?
Your question about the appropriate style can only be answered by an individual. For me, I would have left the slab on El Cap alone until I could have climbed it without so many artificial placements.
|
|
TradIsGood
Trad climber
Gunks end of country
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 03:07pm PT
|
If it is only individual, it is not ethics.
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 11, 2006 - 03:16pm PT
|
Perhaps it is possible (for some people) to include inanimate elements of nature such as a big chunk of rock in the grouping of "others", if the concept of ethics necessarily includes others.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 03:16pm PT
|
John,
Good points. I guess in the end, after Pete and Ammon's comments (relative to the hooking alone), I personally still question whether anyone could have really done things much different on any route up the apron so it seems to me that the real question is more about whether anyone should be climbing the apron at all. I'll be the first to admit not getting the whole Valley hole/rivet/machinehead/bolt thing but I have to wonder what the fixed protection would look like on the same line if you, Walt, the Bird, Eric, or some of the other luminaries had gotten obsessed with the line instead of Mark and Richard - skipping the hooking part, would the anchor/rivet/bolt "arrangement" have likely been all that different?
[Note: Again, I think the whole hole/rivet/machinehead/bolt thing is certainly one of the more fascinating aspects of the Valley for some of us outsiders. I honestly can never tell whether all the rainbow distinctions of what fills a hole are about technology, expediency, efficacy, legacy, long considered evaluations or simply a matter of a bunch of lazy, broke, eccentric, and/or cheap bastards - pretty strange business on the w"hole"...]
|
|
Ultrabiker
Ice climber
Eastside
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 03:41pm PT
|
PR:"Once again John you have failed to address the issue of long term viability of a route that continues to require a hammer and therefore is persistantly eroded.
For you ethics are a short term consideration. You are only concerned with your own ascent.
Ethics is a term that recognizes how your actions affect others."
Interesting comment coming from someone who drills Bolt Ladders 12' from an obvious and well protected 5.8 crack!
I have been on many of both PR's and Duece's Desert and Big Stone routes. Done several of Dueces Big Stone routes and climbed with one of Dueces partners on several occasions, JB. My personal opinion stands that Duece's Desert work was better thought out as far as thinking of the "Future" goes! Examples, Swiss/American and Days of No Future were done in style, great easy "Walk-Offs", cleaned with proper "Clean Ascent" seconds in mind, and the belays were bolted & positioned right on track. Also, Tricks, Tao of Light and The Fang are incredible Classic's with only future "Clean Ascents" written into the FA's. As far as Duece's comments about Heading etc, I concur with his basic philosophy and style. I have yet to be on any of PR's routes that required any "heading", including Dorn Direct. Nor do I know of any that he has put up that had any. I think that Duece's record speaks for itself as far as FA's and their looking out for the "Future" thought process goes. And please show some discipline and respite on your feedback RP.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:23pm PT
|
Ultrabutthole,
you nearly let a week go by without another fan post.
You can past post better than that can't you? lol
For the rest of you ubh has editted out some of the more inane selection of blithering.
Matt, how do you like PDHMAN's new,..uh,..er,..handle?
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:33pm PT
|
ultrabutthole
thanks ron-
i really need that image swirling in my (admittedly already twisted) head
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:34pm PT
|
So far, everybody is missing/ignoring Trad's most perceptive points. Everybody is using terms like they know what the terms mean. But what is the nature of these "ethical facts" that you are talking about? What is the metaphysical ground of these "facts?"
John, I appreciate what you're trying to say here, and I appreciate you stepping up to the plate as you have done. I would like to point out, though, that historically speaking, you have missed Mark's earlier point. Native Son was "a route worth drilling for," in Robbin's earlier terms. You draw a totally arbitrary distinction between chipping and cleaning with JUST a hammer and even less of that actual rock-removal that happens when "hammer and ????" come together (where that ???? can be replaced by "drill," or "chisel," or some other tool. But this IS just an arbitrary line, despite the fact that some others seem to think that it makes the "ethics" oh so clear.
You have treated your "ethical" stand as one of great "purity," yet it is just ONE among many EQUALLY "valid" points on a grand continuum of practices (notice I did not say "ethics") of the time. I'm sure that Robbins, back in the 60's would have been horrified by the Machine Headwall, but, somehow in your own minds that level of full-on drilling is somehow more "pure" than putting hammer and drill together to knock a single crystal off of a flake. Ok, whatever.
The PUREST thing is to FA no big wall unless you can do so utterly naked, free solo, having done something to ensure that you leave no traces of your own body oils (and/or other bodily fluids) behind to "deface" the route. The other end of the spectrum is a route where each and every placement has resulted from hammer blows of some sort. In between is a vast continuum, and NONE of it constitutes "ethics."
|
|
Jerry Dodrill
climber
Bodega, CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:38pm PT
|
This all seems dumb to me. Why do these "Ethics" apply to big walls, but not free climbs. Take Crest Jewell for example. It has as few features that take gear as the apron on WoS. It has what, 6 or more bolts per pitch, including anchors? Nobody's bitching about that. Why would it matter if stone is frictioned up, or hooked? That is, unless the placements/holds are all drilled/manufactured. Is El Cap really the only sacred piece of rock and thus subject to it's own distinct set of ethics? If WoS had been free climbed, drilled on lead with a bunch of fat bolts using hooks would there be an issue?
How many of those engaged in the WoS debate have taken a sledgehammer, crow bar, auto jack, or worse up on a proposed new free route? Reinforced a hold with glue or epoxy? Cut a tree down? Excavated a new sit start or scrubbed moss off a boulder? Used a power drill in wilderness (Shame! Shame!)? I bet a surprising number of people modify their ethics based on what they can get away with and is acceptable at different locations. Do ethics start when you step into your aiders? Not sayin' I'm innocent, just making a point. Where do the rules start and stop in this game? It seems like every ethical consideration is just a question of common sense and an assumption that you should apply a minimum impact methodology while staying alive, not getting shat upon by peers, and looking out for the future. Ethics are relative and subject to change. As a well know environmentalist once honestly told me when questioned about blatantly cutting through eroded switchbacks: "Yeah, I'm an environmentalist... when it's convenient."
-My worthless $.02
(fastening my bullet proof vest and ducking now.)
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:46pm PT
|
Nice, Jerry.
But don't forget your mask.
|
|
atchafalaya
Trad climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:49pm PT
|
note to self: heading is considered "fine art"
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:50pm PT
|
More monkeys flying out of the ubh.
Actually Dorn used some heads, but I shortly came to agree with those who saw their pitfalls, even refered to them as malleable pitons.
They ARE hammered gear in any case.
So glad to know that you are looking out for what kind of climbing others are supposed to do. lol
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:55pm PT
|
Hahhaha funny Jerry "(fastening my bullet proof vest and ducking now.)"
Yes, ethics is the basic principle of purification. Unless one knows what is moral and what is immoral.
Of course, in this material world everything is immoral.
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 04:56pm PT
|
Thanks John for adding a rational new begining out of the emotional chaos on those 'other threads'.
I liked your description of Walts ethical stance. However, I think that there is lots of grey, and infinite shades of grey, black and brown depending on where you swing your hammer. I liked that one photo of the little hook on the flawless white rock, laughing at my memories of some hooking on black and brown dried mud on the other side.
My second aid wall was our first try on Zenyatta Mondatta. (the first 6 pitches had been done years before). Bridwell showed me how to place a copperhead at the base then sent me up there on the first pitch, days later I got the first new lead, the lightening bolt roof. I was 2/3s up the first black corner when I ripped about 40 ft. (first and last fall on new ground) I had been trying to copperhead and nut through some hideous loose chunks stuck in the corner. When eye to eye with Jim, dangling there after the fall, he admonished me, "Don't go pussyfooting around up there, beat that sh#t with your hammer! swing it hard!" 2nd go, I pound the loose stone like Thor, sending a black barrage of detached diorite to the talus, behind the choss is some interesting terrain, cam placement, good copperhead, then a really strenuous roof. One tier in the roof has a shelf crying out for a hook. Can't get a freehang twisting hook to quite stay on the gentle slope, I whack the hammer a few times, now there is a powdery little spot and my hook stays, next move is the most strenous machine head rivet I have ever placed, over the lip on the crystal flawless black wall. Did I agonize over the hammer taps that made a rare mid roof hook move possible?,
f*ck no! It was cool, and people still like that pitch.
I watched Java punch holes in the outside of strudel like layers of brown junk on the crux pitch of what a later party finished into Wyoming Sheep Ranch. He hooked on the 3" holes his hammer punched through when he was trying to drill a rivet.
Sometimes the chisel would be good to scrape away the grey soft stuff and lichen in the corner so you could get your copper to stick. Sometimes the drill, aimed straight down, made a sloper hook work on an obvious big feature that would have felt wierd to dowel around. The limits are subjective, I too have declined to do a chop job on a flawless gold corner on the headwall of Aurora, the most obvious feature on the upper half of that whole headwall was what we were aiming for, and chose to hook and drill right to join the Trip. If you are good, you know when artistry turns to a travesty and you take the other path.
Its all grey and it all comes down to taste and results. And the ethical consideration of those who will follow was always paramount in our minds. We did not beat our chests about how hard that stuff was, though we found it so, but how cool the climbing was, with killer aid moves on beautiful, swirly, consistantly overhanging stone. Though we made a couple of pitches slightly long for 1981, we set out to craft a classic that others would enjoy for years, and by all measures with ZM and Aurora we pulled that off. I have never had anyone come up to me and state that so and so section was a chisel job or a pegboard, and yet we clearly did not have any black and white limitations on what we did with our hammers. You were supposed to make the best possible move in every instance, be bold, and not waste time.
Maybe the later 80's saw JM, Walt, et al. responding with a purer stance in reaction to our more pragmatic style of reporting. Certainly standards should advance and all, but I think all the best nailers, did it more or less the same, after a few ascents every route seems A3+ or as I prefer, Not Too Bad, anyway. Even though I was a teenager then, like Bridwell in mid-life, I was dealing with starting a family etc. We did not take it all so seriously as you new turks, but we had a great time aid climbing!
Perhaps this is the right moment for a classic Birdism, in the middle of the Kauk/Chapman/Bacher rap bolt wars, Jim said "On your dying day, do you think it will matter what you did on this rock or that?, no, all that really matters is how many people you helped along the way."
Peter
|
|
Ultrabiker
Ice climber
Eastside
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 05:02pm PT
|
Where on "Dorn" did you Head???? And don't even try to call #5 Chouinard Mashies, Heads!
And damn it, the Chiseling and Cleaning of a placement is required for a clean and secure Head placement. And if that isn't thinking about future ascentist, I don't know what is.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 05:05pm PT
|
Peter, I'm in awe! Seriously. Great job on ZM too.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 05:11pm PT
|
JD-
i'd suggest that there may be some sort of sliding scale that takes into account not only the accepted local ethic and the # of drilled holes over a given distance, but also the # of climbers that pass over time. my $.02, barely worth that since i may never drill a bolt!
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 05:11pm PT
|
Peter, sounds like your manufactured hook ledge was a reasonable compromise. Less impact than drilling, and subsequent ascents don't need to hammer there.
Pee, maybe, but not hammer.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 05:15pm PT
|
Pee, maybe, but never, EVER poop! Ok, we clear on that? :-)
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 05:23pm PT
|
All the nostalgia about nailing aside, I am totally psyched on the hammerless thing. My son Braden and I did Zodiac and ZM together, he wanted to learn to nail, but he ended up pushing me on cam hook skills. Some of our best moves were free climbing, stemming then lunging for the fixed head wire with a biner in hand. As expected the hardest aid was in the longest most straightforward features, the big grey corner up top was my crux. Braden has also done Mescalito still without swinging a hammer once, though his partner was not so strict.
What will the future hold? Maybe replace all rivets/dowels/lead bolts with removeable suction pieces, bring back the sportiness! erase the in situ junk.
Will climbing as recreation still be ethical in 2020?
Peter
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 05:26pm PT
|
Nice to hear somebody wondering along with me, Peter.
Props to Braden. Say hi.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 05:30pm PT
|
Cool posts Peter. Any chance that you can talk Jim into posting up?
Best, Roger
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 11, 2006 - 05:41pm PT
|
Hi Peter-
Of course your routes were awesome, stellar lines, back in the day when the stellar lines were still unclimbed! I still believe (despite the dozens of routes that have been put up since) that you guys got the last of the great routes on El Cap in the late 70's and early 80's.
I do remember a mutual agreement at some point among a group of us, you know the crowd, discussed over 20+ cups of coffee in the cafe, that drilling shallow bat hook holes on the back sides of sloper edges was a FA technique we no longer considered valid. Perhaps we had all gotten too scared on holes that had been damaged by subsequent ascents, resulting in skating hooks which necessitated re-drilling on subsequent ascents.
By that time, we had all agreed that bathooks (a well established technique of an earlier generation) were bogus, and that any drilled hole in general should be filled with a 5/16" diameter, 3/4" long machine bolt (coarse thread). I think eschewing the sloper angled drilled hook hole must have been an offshoot of bathook argument, though we all had pointy Chouinards in our arsenals specifically ground for that purpose.
In the end, it was really all about getting up the stone as efficiently as possible, just as you have stated so well. All our nuance about "style" and "ethics" was our personal response to the stone in an effort to raise the art form to a slightly higher level. All the groundwork had already been done, thanks to earlier efforts on the big stones, like yours.
Thanks for that.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 05:45pm PT
|
I think Jim is a bit busy now.
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 07:30pm PT
|
Ron O.
Are you goin to OR? I am passing this time and so will miss my bi-annual chillin with Jim.
regards,
Peter
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 07:40pm PT
|
I'll say hi for you.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 09:50pm PT
|
this thread has been a great read boys.
not a bunch of haggling and run on either.
how refreshing.
each man's contribution has had a nice ring.
(hey, let's not feed pete's (maysho's) ego too much here),
nevertheless, gee maysho, nice werds, really.
thanks too deuce, ronbo, madb, matt, vawter, ultrab, healyje, roger, atcha, jerry, tig, golsen, werner et al, all these distinctions and nuances, wow,
if only more than the 20/30 people who are logging in could appreciate it...
|
|
Ultrabiker
Ice climber
Eastside
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 10:57pm PT
|
Now, for some "I am just another dude" opinion.
The real practice of ethics on any route, even more so on a challenging and stout Big Wall route, belongs to the second and beyond ascentists. It is their responbility to adhere to the path and practices that the FAer's established, regardless of their abilities, religious and personal beliefs. It is they that must restrain from any manipulations or deviations of any sorts. They can not nor must not impose their philosophy onto someone elses work, never! My stubborn integrity has kept me time and time from "Chopping" BS bolt and rivet ladders etc. I wish I wasn't such a nice guy sometimes, but I couldn't sleep at night if I did something of that sorts.
Bottom line, as has been said time and time again, "If your shakey at the grade, stay off the route dude!".
PS...Piton Ron, you still driving the around "Park" in that silver Mercedes, with all them totally illegal automatic weapons in your trunk, with that shaved head looking and acting like "Kojak"? I heard that you had a couple of diamonds implanted in your two upper front teeth. Is that true?
Ultrabutthole, come on, your damn lizard can do better than that!
|
|
john hansen
climber
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006 - 11:01pm PT
|
JUst curious... How have hardings old bathook holes held up? are they still viable or have they been replaced with rivet etc.
Also isn't a drill just a specialized chisel?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2006 - 12:03am PT
|
ultrabutthole,
you are miserably behind the times!
I now have a Beemer with special WMD capabilities. I'm just getting ready to release the anthrax at Outdoor Retailer and beat a hasty retreat to my secret hideout.
There I will prepare my nuclear powered diamond toothed drill for my assault upon the 5.8 cracks of the world.
Who loves ya baby?
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2006 - 12:46am PT
|
Late to the party:
Climbers tend to be people who don't want other people telling them what to do ("You'll break your neck!") so, the whole ethics argument becomes tangled and complicated.
But, since they are inherently close to the earth ("My face was pressed to the rock, hoping to get some sort of friction from my nose because my feet were slipping . . . . .") they do have a rather good sensibility regarding natural resources, and the need to preserve them.
And therein lies the conflict: a desire to do whatever they want, in the context of an environment with rules and constraints that are fluid, vague, evolving and unwritten.
|
|
Ultrabiker
Ice climber
Eastside
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2006 - 12:51am PT
|
Be advised there PR, us that are blessed with "Ultrabuttholes" have the capability to let loose a deluge that nothing in your entire arsenal of "Wanna-be" toys, can deter, nothing. And you know what is even more dangerous, when the owner of such a weapon knows how to utilize those incredible capabilities, in order to bring a storm of hurt upon those individuals that are begging for it. So, beware of what wrath your condescending illogical verbage of mute points may impose upon your very being...
Now back to the point of BW Ethics.
|
|
yo
climber
I'm so over it
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2006 - 12:51am PT
|
Yo Deuce,
I topstepped to clip that Albatross buttonhead on Sunday. Ho mama! Them beaks don't go in there so good. Cheers.
TR pending.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2006 - 01:13am PT
|
lol
"ultrabuttholes have the capability to let loose a deluge"
Cap'm, she's gonna blow!
|
|
Ultrabiker
Ice climber
Eastside
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2006 - 09:39am PT
|
PR: You think St. Helen's was bad when she blew...STFB!
Duece, P8(4WD Ledge) of Swiss/American, is no 5.9R unless you're on at least five hits of acid! Yikes! Xavier's Spirit lives on that ledge, laughing away as you come by with the look of "Holy Sh*t...I'm gonna die" on your face!
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2006 - 11:32am PT
|
My comments above tried to make the point that when dealing with first ascent territory especially in loose rock, the view of ethical purity is not going to be simple. That being said, the point Ultrabiker, (don't aim your backside toward me!), makes is very important, especially now that big wall climbing is so popular. Subsequent ascent parties need to have a completely different attitude toward hammering, promoting hammerless climbing is key, and sections on ethics in great books like John's are vital to educate new aid climbers in stone preservation.
Off to Tuolumne for Jeff Schoen's memorial, RIP, try to keep your minds focused on the light!
Peter
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2006 - 11:49am PT
|
Thanks Peter, regards.
STFB ???
Sink the fresh bolts?
Stuff to feed Bozo?
Stupid tough foolish bluster?
Sorry two-bit fukin' bonehead?
LOL
Nature was right; a waste of time. I'm outta here too.
|
|
bringmedeath
climber
la la land
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2006 - 12:44pm PT
|
We did not take it all so seriously as you new turks, but we had a great time aid climbing!
Very well said! Taking stuff too seriously only leads to not having fun.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2006 - 03:23pm PT
|
JM,
Thanks for answering my question. You are true purist. If anyone has the right to question the legitimacy of Richard's and Mark's micro-enhancements on Wings of Steel, it is you.
Your refusal to chisel a head above The Canoe on Flight of the Albatross and placing a rivet is analogous to Steve Gerberding placing the rivet on the hard pitch above Wino Towers on Reticent Wall. "I could have used the feature that was there, thus increasing the difficulty, but I knew that before long it would fall off. So knowing this, I placed the rivet."
Steve is so bad-ass he doesn't need to artificially increase the rating of a pitch by not drilling a rivet. Without the rivet, that pitch would have been a legit New Wave A5 pitch.
I see on McTopo that the pitch above The Canoe is rated [only] A3, and the rivet isn't shown. I wouldn't have thought that Flight has received very many ascents, so I'm surprised the pitch has been lowered to A3 so soon - what did you originally rate it? How many ascents has the route seen, do you know?
Also - I don't get this:
"One was on the Flight of the Albatross, on the pitch above the Canoe. After a series of shallow beaks and lousy heads up a 2" corner, with a bad fall potential onto the Canoe ledge, I came to a section of the corner with no seam at all. It would have been a simple matter to trench a single head placement in the shallow corner to get past the section, and it would have been quite secure. For me, that is. It would have been much more secure, in fact, than any of the other garbage placements that I had been ascending on. Continuing above the placement were another string of body weight placments. But with future ascents, the manufactured placement would have gotten more and more ratty, and the pitch would become more and more dangerous and difficult. So I drilled."
I don't get that! Why would a manufactured head placement become any more ratty over the years than a non-manufactured one? [Sheesh - thirty El Cap routes, and I still don't get it....]
Great to hear from you, Pete. We met in '99 up in Tuolomne after the Camp 4 thing - I was the guy who had just come down off of Jolly Roger.
On Zenyatta and Aurora, did you guys enhance ["trench"] any head placements?
Peter Mayfield writes,
"Did I agonize over the hammer taps that made a rare mid roof hook move possible?, f*ck no! It was cool, and people still like that pitch."
"Sometimes the drill, aimed straight down, made a sloper hook work on an obvious big feature that would have felt wierd to dowel around."
It sounds as though you guys made quite a few enhancements on Zed-Em.
"If you are good, you know when artistry turns to a travesty and you take the other path."
One man's Artistry [Zed-Em] is another man's Travesty [Wings of Steel].
"I have never had anyone come up to me and state that so and so section was a chisel job or a pegboard, and yet we clearly did not have any black and white limitations on what we did with our hammers."
Now here is the MILLION-DOLLAR QUESTION:
Zed-Em was put up slightly after Wings of Steel if the Reid guide is to be believed. Peter freely admits that they made some enhancements -possibly many - including enhanced hooks.
So why is it that Mark and Richard have had the livin' bejeepers beat out of them for making microscopic enhancements, whereas Bridwell and crew according to Peter above didn't receive any criticism?
Please don't misunderstand me - I am not criticizing Zed-Em nor its ascensionists. If those guys chose to enhance a few placements, then that's cool - they knew what they were doing.
But why is it you guys have beat the snot out of Richard and Mark for hundreds and hundreds of posts about very very small enhancements, but nobody will beat up Bridwell, Mayfield and Row for their obviously bigger and [presumably] more numerous enhancements on Zenyatta?
Paradoxical, eh?
|
|
yo
climber
I'm so over it
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2006 - 03:45pm PT
|
That Canoe pitch is NOT Taco A3(no R). It simply is not. I was scared on that thing. Two rivets lead to OK fixed heads which lead to beak tips which lead to the bolt at 30'. A good cam above that leads to even crappier and more sustained beak tips to a (looked like original) rivet at around 60'+. Easier above.
I haven't done loads of routes to compare it with, and I fully admit to being pretty light duty, but that pitch was harder than any pitch currently on ZM.
Beak TIPS!
I believe the Taco also recommends the Jessica Albatross as a good intro moderate/hard aid route. Again I must disagree with the McMaster. That pitch is a gumbie killer.
Working on TR...
|
|
BrentA
Gym climber
Las Vizzle, on the rizzle
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2006 - 04:16pm PT
|
I concur, the pitch above the canoe has teeth. So rad to hear all the folks that established this stuff talk about what was going through their heads at the time. Thanks so much fellas.
Cheers you bad mofos.
Brent
Edit- The X man "adrift in a Sea of Dreams" photo on Duece's book was fully influential in my life...no sandbaggin, no shiit. Fully stoked me on the path in life I've chosen. Thank you John. That and Twights book have been my bibles...one man's truth...thank you.
|
|
Ultrabiker
Ice climber
Eastside
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2006 - 06:09pm PT
|
Come on RP, I thought your extensive knowledge of "Military" weaponary was deep and vast!! There's so much more to the DOD arsenal than simply partaking in the fun time adventures of utilizing "Hard" weapons (guns) to terminate other humans. The fine art of "Psyche" warfare is far more destructive. And the use of acronyms is a prerequeste...
STFB: Stand The F*ck By!
As for you all digging and chopping on WOS? GTF on it and have fun. Don't worry about the who, why and where dunit BS. All you modern "Wall Dogs" think too much! It's goddamn aid climbing for God's sake gents. It's there, it's been there and it will stay there. Get on it and pretend that you don't give a hoot about the "artificial" propaganda BS. I guaranfrekntya that it will test all of your mettle, regardless if it's manufactured or not! Quit agonizing and whining over superficial BS. I would much rather hook onto some chiseled/manipulated tiny ledge, than to step onto CAMP SIX and find three cooler's full of somebody's (initials SB) sh#t that were left there by this individual that couldn't have given a rats ass about no one else except himself. All after spending months trying to bring fame and fortune to his selfish dumbass name. I would rather slap a #1 Head into a "Cleaned" groove than to encounter what use to be a perfect A4+ Beak/RURP seam and has over night become a travesty of blown out sh*t that only #2 Offset Flexi's and above will maybe work in. On and On.
Let it go boys. Get on it, do your best to do it in the style as the First Ascentist did. And by all means, please do try to have some fun while your sphincter is pulsating and oooozing, would ya! JHC!!!!
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 - 12:06pm PT
|
[bump]
Still await comments and answers to my Million Dollar Question above.
|
|
Mimi
Trad climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 - 01:54pm PT
|
Hello Pete, hang in there. The discussion isn't over.
Cheers,
Mimi
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 - 03:07pm PT
|
Pete,
ZM was finished sept. 81. I believe WOS was sometime in 82, a year later. ZM was way less enhanced just by virtue of apx. 82 belay bolts and machine heads, for 18 pitches, vs 149? for 13 new pitches. I described a pitch that took major trundling to make a point about the grosser scale of "enhancement". Yes there were a few enhanced moves, moving slightly beyond "cleaning with intention". But for the most part, existing features were linked boldly with natural moves. Both routes used less holes than both the established adjacent classics, and the next wave of routes that were done near by in later years.
Re. million dollar question. As stated earlier ZM and Aurora were lines that had been attempted before so were already "accepted" as next wave routes for 1981. The local climbing community assumed we would do a good job, and by most accounts we did not let them down. I think there was a logical evolution of what a "good line" was. From the most obvious, to the more tenuous. WOS was too much of a conceptual leap, just from the unlikely looking slab, to be accepted by the local denizens.
Peter
|
|
Lambone
Ice climber
Ashland, Or
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 - 03:32pm PT
|
nice job on the Clean ascent Peter! probly lots of fixed stuff, but still hard no doubt?!
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006 - 04:26pm PT
|
"Climbing ethics are the "principles of right conduct" by which we climb. As our sport progresses, our ethics change with the times (pitons to clean climbing is an example).
Style has to do with the methods that we use for our ascents (Do you trench kid? Well do ya??).
So when you step into your aiders, it's all about the style Baby"
I think folks worked up about this sort of stuff b/c they (we) feel that f*#king with a natural resource in certain ways defies certain 'principles of right conduct'. Trenching, chipping, drilling, gluing, leaving ropes up for a decade in the high name of avoiding the above, and a zillion other 'vices' undertaken in the name of our 'art'...these are all issues of style, but can also be issues of ethics depending upon one's point of view regarding "right conduct".
Another thought stemming from one of John's earlier posts (might seem out of context now)...On the one hand I've looked to those who know more to inform my ideas and opinions on managing impact on the rock. On the other hand, sometimes I see the opinions of those who know more cited like they're a group of ancient rabbi's with a direct line from G-d telling us what totally arbitrary hocus pocus must be taken to return the sullied silverware to a kosher state. I've noticed that a lot of times respect for history/our betters in climbing can devolve into the acceptance of things that we wouldn't agree with in principle, but defend in the name of those who came before or advanced beyond us.
|
|
Rhodo-Router
Gym climber
Otto, NC
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006 - 10:13am PT
|
I always thought 'style' had to do with how you climbed, whereas 'ethics' was about your effect on the rock. Obviously the two are closely linked when you're talking about aid climbing.
Beyond this I don't have a lot to add to this discussion, although I think Melissa has a valid point about how something some dude did in 1968 when he was 22 is suddenly a major theological touchstone.
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006 - 11:27am PT
|
Perhaps it is time for one of my favorite climbing quotes of all time, from my favorite spiritual mentor.
"Technology is imposed on the land, but technique means conforming to the landscape. They work in opposite directions, one forcing passage while the other discovers it.
The goal of developing technique is to conform to the most improbable landscape by means of the greatest degree of skill and boldness supported by the least equipment."
Doug Robinson
Climb on!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006 - 03:46pm PT
|
Still waiting to hear the metaphysical foundations of these "ethical" facts. Is the metatheory going to be one of authority, rights, consequences, etc? All I'm hearing so far is lots of slop about "Well, we've tended to think of things like this.... so there's some weight of tradition," as though tradition or even consensus has ethical weight (if so, tell me the metatheory). I haven't heard anything yet to explain HOW (and related to that question, WHY) what we do to rocks counts as right or wrong. Lots of mutual back-patting, but nothing yet about ETHICS. If this is just a matter of "Lots of us LIKE x and DISLIKE y," then it's pretty uninteresting and really doesn't act (in anything approaching a rigorous way) to filter IN or OUT any particular routes or practices.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2006 - 09:37pm PT
|
Ed, I thought we had gotten past the specifically WoS side of this question. We did not come into the Valley to put up a "visionary" climb, nor have WE ever thought it was visionary. We ourselves have never called the route "great" or "hard" or anything like that. OTHERS have said those things, but ALL we have ever said is the the route was not a "bolt/rivet ladder" or a "manufactured route." That we were correct about that much seems pretty much beyond dispute at this point, so can we get past that particular debate?
How the locals reacted has also been debated to death, and I do NOT want to resurrect that either. ALL I'm trying to do now is point out that there's lots of "ethics" talk, but I see no reason yet to think that anybody has any idea what they are talking about. Do you?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 12:56am PT
|
masbolter1 said: "but I see no reason yet to think that anybody has any idea what they are talking about."
Does that mean only you know what ethics is all about?
Somehow most people have a good feel for ethics as I can see. Ever ask the planet earth what she wants?
Maybe start really looking ........
|
|
Ultrabiker
Ice climber
Eastside
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 01:06am PT
|
This truly typifies "Bad Big Wall Ehtic's"! AHHHHHHHHH! Thanks Duece for this Classic!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 01:29am PT
|
Interesting. How does my making the statement that I haven't heard anything to suggest that people know what they are talking about imply that I do? Maybe I'm just an ethical skeptic.
And, Werner, "Start looking" to figure out what Mother Earth wants??? That's DEEEEP! Can you give me some initial clues? I've never thought to anthropomorphize the Earth, so it's going to be a stretch, and I will definitely need some help to get going! Perhaps you can start by explaining why I should think that the Earth wants anything at all.
Karma? Mother Earth? Robinson's statement? I still haven't heard ETHICS! BTW, I do know something about ethical THEORY, so I find it hilarious to hear WoS used as an exemplar of (some sort of) "ethics," when I have yet to hear WHAT that is. Exactly WHAT ethic is WoS an example OF?
Let's take Robinson's statement. Surely, Ed, you're not treating this statement as an ethical statement. What about it is properly normative? WHY should that statement be thought of as normative? What underlying theory of values does that statement fit within?
My point is that I hear lots of fluffy claims with no foundation, and it is not the case that everybody's opinion is as good as everybody else's. This is primarily the case because these various opinions contradict. It's easy to make claims with no foundation, but all the hand-waving aside, I'm not hearing anybody yet explain WHY Robinson's statement (or any of the others so far) is normative.
For example, why SHOULD we do what Robinson suggests? Why SHOULD we look to see what Mother Earth wants? (Why should we even think that Mother Earth wants anything?) What is the normative principle that underlies karma?
I'm baffled, but as it's already been pointed out, of course I'm dense. Feel free to punt, if you like. Of course, then I (and other careful thinkers) will find WoS (and other climbs) to be an example of... WHAT?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 04:01am PT
|
Ed,
By the first sentence in Robinson's definition you present I would very much argue that M & R "discovered" the least technology / highest technique passage up the apron. I would further argue that their ascent epitomizes the second sentence in that same definition.
I base both assertions, again, on the idea that in this case the route dictated the means and that only better tools (hooks), as suggested by Christian, would result in a better outcome than M & R's. I can't help but circling around to this same question about every twenty posts: could anyone climb that line or a line anywhere in the neighborhood with a significantly better "technique", with more skills, or with a higher degree of "boldness". Each time I circle back my answer is an emphatic "no" yet again; and that both the underlying assumption and unescapable conclusion following the "ethics" train of logic is that the route shouldn't have been climbed - and still shouldn't given no passage would have less impact until Van der Waals shoes and gloves are available. But then you are talking about what? "Forcing a passage[.i]" with no impact? Hell, where's the fun in that...
|
|
elcapfool
Big Wall climber
hiding in plain sight
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 09:01am PT
|
Perhaps part of the issue is impact vs. usage.
A higher number of bolts is frowned on, but can become accepted if the overall contribution of the route has enough appeal to the masses. Is anyone going to say the nose shouldn't have been climbed because the features run out before rimming out? No.
But 150 or so bolts on a route that no one wants to do is clearly the other end of the spectrum. The route was designed to keep people off of it. From the run out hooking off bad rivets, to the formula for riveting/ bolting to up the difficulty.
I am amused you don't think WoS was a visionary route. Can you name even one other route anywhere in the world to compare it to?
And what's the deal on the small holes on RoF? I heard you made some special bathook to use the narrower hole, so no one else would be able to hook it as well as you did. Granted I have only touched the first placement, but I got ideas from the smaller hole. Namely, one could use a secret special tool, that would stump everyone else. I even sketched up a prototype for using a 5/32 hole. Do the math, you are removing way less rock, so it would be much faster.
From my strictly personal view, you can pull whatever shenanigans you want on any rock in the world, except El Capitan. When Latino street punks start tagging the Vatican, I suppose I'll have to rethink that, but for now I'm comfortable with it.
I have looked all over the net, but can't find any info on the petzl hooks from 1995. I bought them in Paris at Au Vieux Campeur. I thought the model was "crochet", but have since learned this is French for "hook". They had less radius than the Regelette, with a unique rounded sharp point, and a sewn sportdraw type sling pivoting from a slot on the bottom.
The secret for the WoS hooking is to only use one aider on a hook. Two causes the hook to rock back and forth, while one keeps the pull straight. I used a Yates wall ladder with a truncated disc of plastic at the bottom and some pins for weight, to keep it open and down, and facing the wall. Just put one foot on top of the other when you get to the top of the aider.
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 16, 2006 - 09:34am PT
|
Question for madbolter and msmith:
Even though there has been so much scrutiny of WoS, some of the details are still vague. So while we are all here again....
You have been very forthcoming with a lot of the history of your climb, so can you tell us, as much as you remember, a few more details about the route?
Specifically, how many pitches of new climbing did you establish on WoS? (I'm under the impression that after the slab, you joined Horse Chute? Or were there new pitches established above the slab, too?). Also, roughly what was the length of the new pitches? Were you using 150' or 165' ropes?
Several people have requested an original topo. Does one exist, and if so, can we see it?
You have quoted the number of hook placements quite precisely as 151, I believe? Roughly how many other placements (heads, pitons, chocks, etc.) were there? I'm interested on the total number of undrilled aid placements on the pitches that involved new climbing. Related to this, were there any free climbing sections?
Can you break down the numbers of drilled placements; that is, separate the number of belay bolts, and the number of on-lead drilled anchors?
Finally, do you think your line was the only line of weakness up the slab, or from what you saw up there, there were other paths that looked feasible?
thanks
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 11:35am PT
|
Trying to increase my word count per post… Also as a ‘fraidy cat and otherwise retired aid climber, I am obviously well equipped to espouse Yosemite climbing ethics.
Richard, you ask a good question on the definition of ethics in climbing. Raising the technical issues of metaethics and normative ethics may be a good place to start to tease out the meaning of applied ethics.
It seems to me that ethics in Yosemite rock climbing (I wrote first ‘climbing’, then ‘rock climbing,’ then ‘Valley climbing,’ then ‘Yosemite rock climbing.’) are based on trade offs along variations within single ethical attributes as well as trade offs among competing ethical attributes.
The attributes that I would include as ethical are the following. There are also style issues and safety issues that I have purposely left off the ethics list, although I don’t believe there are any hard and fast rules.
-Difficulty
-Damage to the rock
-Beauty of the line
-Conforming the climbing to the natural line
-Adherence to standards that allow subsequent ascents
A normative statement might be: "Climb new routes only on natural lines following features of the rock. Do not reduce the line to difficulty standards below the current standards by enhancing holds. Do not artificially add to the difficulty of the line. Choose techniques and gear that are commonly available so that your route can be repeated by climbers with similar skills. Do not use techniques or gear that damage the rock—“leave no trace behind.”
We might argue with the particulars of such a normative statement, but I think it comes pretty close to what Yosemite climbers have been doing in fact for at least the past 60 years of so.
What pass for ethical statements are only of the applied sort. Robbins’ first ascent rule is one of the oldest; all new bolts will be chopped is a more recent one. However as fixed ethical rules they lose their currency and authority as the target moves: as the lines become more tenuous; the natural difficulty increases; the damage to the rock becomes more acute; the equipment changes; and the standards of difficulty increase.
Robinson’s statement seems to be an attempt to set a meta-normative rule (if there is such a thing) that may be useful in thinking about the issues, but it doesn’t seem to offer much in the way of applied rules.
The mass of all rock climbs (as opposed to mountaineering) can only be defined by generally accepted rules, agreed by climbers. Given this, sorting out the ethics becomes essential. Fortunately, most of this work rests with the climbers who are doing first ascents, and many climbers can climb their whole lives without having to make an ethical decision. A common response to all of this is to say that it doesn’t matter or that you have to make up your own mind—the editorial position taken by one of the rags in their recent ‘ethics’; issue. This is wrong headed since every climber in the world accepts that the nature of rock climbing is about following the rules, whether they like to discuss or think about ethics or not.
There are shades of gray that trip all of us up. Practical examples:
The first ascent of the Cathedral Spires involved whacking notches into a thin flake.
The first ascent of the ‘Lost Arrow’ was climbed with a lasso.
The first ascent team on the Dihedral Wall used lots of fixed ropes rather than maintain the difficulty associated with ground up ascents.
Robbins used too many bolts on ‘Tis-sa-ack’.
Bachar hung on hooks to place bolts on the ‘Bachar Yerian.’
Kauk placed crummy bolts on ‘Space Babble.’
I purposely picked old issues to show the effects of fading-with-time and the effects of increased levels of difficulty on ethical breakpoints.
The ethical difficulty for climbers comes with balancing offsetting normative proscriptions:
When does ‘cleaning’ become enhancing become manufacturing?
Where does damage to the rock to maintain difficulty get replaced with a rivet or bolt?
Where is the break point for holes drilled on a beautiful line versus holes drilled on a suspect line?
Where is the break point for continued damage to the rock on a free route versus an aid route?
The fact that these are debatable break points does not mean that there are not normative ethical benchmarks.
I see in John’s first post a clear definition of a breakpoint when he and his peers decided that if you had to enhance the rock, you should drill a permanent hole. That’s pretty normative and a clear break from prior thinking. With all the kudos to John for deciding that and living up to it, it is still restricted to a subset of trade offs. For example, it doesn’t cover pins that clearly will damage the rock over time. The world ain’t perfect.
|
|
Teth
climber
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 11:39am PT
|
Although deuce4's ethical distinction of counting any modification made using a hammer in combination with a chisel/drill as excessive artificial enhancement does not clear Mark and Richard, as they were unaware of this distinction and used hammer and drill in combination to remove sand grain sized crystals, it does seem to legitimise the route Wings of Steel. I say this because I am certain that it is possible to remove a sand grain sized crystal from the top of a dime width flake without using a hammer in combination with a drill/chisel.
Elcapfool was able to climb the hardest pitches of the slab using special Petzel hooks which were more aggressive than the Leeper narrows, so that they would pop out any offending sand crystals when seating themselves. If Richard and Mark had been aware of the hammer & chisel/drill distinction they could have used a knife blade or the edge of the hook to pop out such crystals. It would have not been quite as easy as giving a delicate tap on the drill with the hammer, but it would have been possible.
I do not see this as contrived hook placements to increase the rating of the pitch. First, there were enough bolts used to keep these pitches from being A5, even if they are runout. Second, the dime width flacks were there, so it was not as if it was a blank featureless face, even if it might have looked like one without very close inspection. After 20 years of exfoliation (on a micro level given the quality of the rock on the great slab) some of the flakes M&R used will be gone and others will have formed which were not useable when M&R climbed it. I doubt that subsequent assents of the first two pitches used all the same hook placements as M&R did.
I do like the distinction of using a hammer in combination with a second tool, even if it is an arbitrary distinction. It is simple to follow, and although you can remove a sand grain sized crystal without violating it, it would be difficult to do major modification such as drilling a hole or trenching without using a hammer and tool in combination. I am not sure that it can be legitimately used to judge someone who was not aware of this principal when the action was taken (I think in such cases you must wade in the gray muck of judging according to the extent of impact, or the principals known to the perpetrator), but as a way of framing an ethical principle for future accents and defining a principle in an easy to understand and follow manner I quite like it.
Teth
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 11:56am PT
|
Richard,
I am probably missing something deeper about the definition of ethics, but I think that the Robinson statement is about as close as we can get to describing our dilemma.
Yosemite Valley has a very long and rich tradition of being the testing ground for ethical considerations in mountaineering, beginning with John Muir, the first white mountaineer/poet to tramp them hills, the Sierra Clubbers who "conquered" Lower and Higher Spire, Robbins et al. who debated what was "fair and sporting" on new routes, to Robinson with his clean climbing manifesto, to Kauk and Bacher fighting over rap bolting and chopping.
The fact that modern climbers have these roots leads to a kind of schizophrenia when faced with modern climbing practices and culture. This is the root of Dean Potter's "communing with nature" in front of a high impact camera crew.
I learned ropecraft as a kid from some of the old timers in the Sierra Club. At a sunday climb back then I got to meet David Brower - one of the most effective conservationists of this century, but also the first guy to use an expansion bolt to make a "modern" rock climb (Shiprock) possible. When climbing a classic Sierra arete, it is easy to feel in tune with nature and connected to our rich conservationist lineage. Then you go to the sport crag and connect to the "technological solution" started by Brower, (or George Anderson).
As an environmental educator I feel challenged to explain bolts, chains, rap slings, and even bright chalk marks, to the kids I hike around Donner Summit with, and I can totally relate to the horror a group of bird watchers experienced when hiking into a crew of power drilling, tunes blastin, butt tossing, climbers in Boulder.
The fact that we are allowed to climb on rocks within public land preserves is kind of amazing when you think about it, and can only be explained by the traditional relationship between climbing/environmentalist pioneers and the Park and Forest services.
Though far short of prescriptive rules and clear metrics that you seek, community debate and feedback is vital to keep the sport evolving with some kind of connection to its roots. Also, mitigating actions such as Ken Yeagers' Valley Clean Up are community ethical acts that go a long way toward preserving our privilage to climb. I am really worried that incidents like Watkins being strung with ropes etc. could shut the whole thing down in the park.
Quick condemnation and action are necessary when ethical boundaries are clearly breached. On the scale of what you do with a hammer on a particular move, I agree with Ed (who agreed with me) that it may be more of a question of art critique, but it is important to remember the larger historical ethical context (and connundrum!).
Peter
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 12:14pm PT
|
Richard here's some real so called "Zen crap" for yeah.
Two monks on a pilgrimage came to the ford of a river. There they saw a girl dressed in all her finery, obviously now knowing what to do since the river was high and she did not want to spoil her clothes. Without more ado, one of the monks took her on his back, carried her across and put her down on dry ground on the other side. Then the monks continued on their way.
However, the other monk, after an hour or so, started complaining, Surely it is not right to touch a woman; it is against the commandments to have close contact with women. How could you go against the rules for monks?
The monk who had carried the girl walked along silently, but finally he remarked, I set her down by the river an hour ago, why are you still carrying her?
Still carrying her? She's a pretty damn heavy one.
|
|
the Fet
climber
A urine, feces, and guano encrusted ledge
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 01:33pm PT
|
Very interesting thoughts and comments from everyone.
madbolter: "I haven't heard anything yet to explain HOW (and related to that question, WHY) what we do to rocks counts as right or wrong."
Ok, you asked for it, and since you're a philosopher...
note: I don't profess to be organized or very clear in my writing, but hopefully you'll find some interesting ideas below.
My take is that all of this really boils down to WHY we rock climb. We are all looking for challenge, otherwise we could just hike up the falls trail to the top of El Cap.
Topics like WoS and The WOEML are very interesting because it's where style and ethics collide. With 2nd ascents and on, ethics are pretty cut and dry, leave the route how you found it. But on an FA the team is going to pick their own style and other people are going to judge that style by it's effects on other climbers and the rock. People are going to judge the validity of the route and if the route could have been done in a better style by someone else. And if someone could possibly do it better does that mean that the route should lie in wait, or does it boil down to the generally accepted "first come, first served"? I guess that's up to the local community to decide.
A light really went on in my head one day while I was discussing style/ethics with RR, (yes, shameless namedropping :-) I asked him about these comments below regarding the Prow, which are in the history section of the SuperTaco for the route.
"The climb required 38 bolts-not such a big deal today, but the '60s bolting ethic was different, and the ascent propmted criticism. TM Herbert said, "Robbins, Robbins, not you, not you, man. Hell, you'll set a bad example. Pretty soon we'll have guys bolting up blank walls all over the valley." Robbins responded, "But man, it's all a question of the climb being worth it. Worth the number of bolts. Look at the line, man, look at the line."
To which Royal replied to me. "I never said that!" LOL. He then said it's not about the climb being worth it, but the climbing being worth it. I think this is a pretty big distinction between Robbins and Harding. Harding was obviously all about the line, the aesthetic. He looked at the Salathe Wall area before choosing the Nose. He knew a more natural line existed elsewhere but he would just look at a wall that looked appealing and think "I want to climb that." Robbins was more focused on the naturalness (is that a word?) of the line. Who was right? Are they both entitled to their opinions?
We have all heard countless times "life is about the journey not the destination". And that applies to climbing too. As I mention above, if it's just getting to the top of El Cap you could take the falls trail. However without a destination there is no journey, destinations are what give you some of the greatest rewards in life - the journeys. I have come to the conslusion that life is most rewarding when you can acheive a balance between setting challenging goals "destinations" while at the same time realizing that the journey to reach those goals is what helps you grow, and feel fulfilled. In life this can also be thought of as - appreciate what you have, while at the same time striving for more. All of a sudden the concept of desire causing suffering evaporates, desire leads to purpose, as long as you don't think you won't be happy unless/until you reach that desire.
If we eliminated technology many climbs would never have been done. Without bolts even the Salathe Wall wouldn't have been done (actually I guess it could have been done some day, since people can free it now, so possibly someday someone could climb it without bolts).
At the top of a conceptual mountain is the naked, chalkless, onsight, free-solo. Absolute purity of climbing that people rarely engage in (and strict adherence to would negate the possiblity of the establishment of countless fanstastic climbs). Then following that slippery slope all the way to the bottom of that mountain is a bolt ladder, place on rappel. I think in reality most of use are somewhere in the middle. Some are more to one side than the other, but when I hear statements such as "so and so was raping the rock" they aren't realizing that those other people are probably climbing for many of the same reasons they are. At the same time I also realize we need "style/ethics police" because that slope IS slippery. Many new climbers don't realize why it's important to limit technology and preserve the challenge and must be educated.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 01:35pm PT
|
Christian, we used a standard-sized 1/4" drill for our bathooks on RoF. I have no idea how you got a different idea, particularly since a Leeper narrow hook drops perfectly into those holes (which is exactly how we drilled them). We used bathooks on RoF instead of rivets to extend the idea of "keeping the commitment level high." Of course, I realize that this is "manufactured difficulty," which was exactly our point. For example, if you look at the first pitch, you will see from that our philosophy for the whole route. We used only specially designed, exotic steel (very expensive) claws of many shapes and sizes, along with custom screamers we had designed, in order to protect our pitches. Mark took two falls on that first pitch, both of which were from heights above 50-feet off the deck, and our system worked to save him from ground falls (screamers activated, tiny claws, on natural flakes, held). We were very intentionally trying to push the edge of the hooking envelope, with hooking pitches in which you could not look down and think, "Maybe even that crappy Zamac is going to hold this hundred-footer." We released our courtesy topo to SAR (so the Park Service would know where our anchors are), but since then have said nothing publicly about the route. We did not do the route with the intention or desire that anybody else do it, so the experience really was "just for ourselves." On the other hand, anybody will find that a Leeper narrow hook drops perfectly into our bathook holes, so "standard" bathooking is just what they will find.
You will find me completely unwilling to be drawn into any debate or discussion about RoF, since we very intentionally did not say anything public about this route. The route has always been private to Mark and I, so people can do or not do whatever they wish about it, and people can think or not think (which has been the general position) whatever they wish about it.
However, your line about WoS: "But 150 or so bolts on a route that no one wants to do is clearly the other end of the spectrum. The route was designed to keep people off of it," flies in the face of the facts. In fact, MANY people have "wanted" to do the route, MANY have tried it, and the fact that ALL have so far failed doesn't speak to desire. If even "hard" big walls must be crafted specifically to make the experience "fun," then I suggest that the supposed "hard men" are really "fun men" who would better employ their mentality designing cool rides at a theme park. We went up on WoS to push ourselves to our (then) limits, and in that we succeeded. If you and some others find the route "not fun" enough to "desire" it enough to succeed, then that says something about attempt-teams rather than the route.
Another point is that there are not "150 or so" bolts on the route. We have been extremely forthright and accurate (for decades) about the EXACT number of holes on WoS, yet there is always this "drift" (uhh... some might say "these lies") about the amount of drilling on the route. But we've been around and around about this point, haven't we, Christian?
Really, the issue on THIS thread is that JM started it to try to create a more rigorous basis for sustaining his assertion that the "enhancements" on WoS were a baaddd thing, and that the "clear, bright line" between using the pick of a hammer (like he and Peter have done) and putting the hammer and drill (or chisel) together (like we, and many other FAs have done) is a beautifully distinguishing basis for an "ethic" about how to do FAs. Somehow, removing dozens of POUNDS of rock to get placements is wonderful and "ethical" because it was done using JUST the pick of a hammer, which the probably less than one gram of material we removed from a few flakes on WoS is obviously baaddd and "unethical" because we used a drill tip to do it!
Hmm... if we COULD have been as PRECISE as we needed to be, to remove the TINY amounts of rock we did, with the pick of a hammer we SHOULD have done our mods that way! Right? So, this "ethic" (and I continue to use that term derisively) would suggest that we would have been BETTER to beat the living crap out of our flakes with the tip of a hammer, digging nice, safe, deep pits into the wall (but using ONLY the hammer--being CAREFUL to keep the hammer and drill apart from each other), then that would have been "ethical" and good! It's like gun laws in California: keep the gun and the ammo separate! (It's of note that this very distinction fails Robinson's maxim! Emphasizing "least equipment" fails to explicate in distinguishing between, say, ZM and WoS.)
I deny that there is any clear or even sensible line here. I assert instead that the term "ethics" has been bandied about ignorantly and uselessly, and I await hearing the genuinely ethical theory that can explain why anything we do to a rock matters. I thought this was an "ethics" thread, but it seems that we're hashing out the same old failed rhetoric that hundreds of posts have already beat into the ground. What I learn from this is that when informed and careful thinking fails to explain why WoS was bad, bad, BAD; in that event simple assertions will have to suffice. Count me ROFL as the bad arguments get worse and more desperate.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 01:41pm PT
|
John, most of your questions have been answered repeatedly on other threads. So, I'm not going to reiterate all those points again. One point is amazing to me at this stage, however. After all these years you honestly believe that we ditched the route into Horse Chute at the top of the slab? We did thirteen new pitches, four of which were above the slab, and we joined Aquarian Wall rather than Horse Chute. We used 165 foot ropes, and except for the thirteenth, our shortest pitch is 145 feet of rope run, almost all were longer.
Regarding whether or not "another line of weakness" exists on the slab, I would certainly think so. The slab is over 600 feet wide at the base, so anybody can stroll along and see possibilities.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 02:06pm PT
|
I guess in the end I'd just love to see - anyone - establish another line up the apron with the same technology as M & R used and do it in any better style, a smaller "hole" count, fewer pieces of fixed pro, and with less impact (removed material). Faster and lighter I believe - but I still don't believe and haven't been convinced by anything here that I or any of you would be able to accomplish a line on the apron in any better "style" or "ethics".
And I guess I'm still at a loss as to why no one seems to want to simply say, "others could do it better..." or what everyone clearly seems to be saying if they can't say that - "no one should climb the apron". Simple language, simple statements; no Ph.D. in Ethics or Philosophy required. For all of you arguing agains WoS - Should the apron be climbed (yes or no)? And if "yes", do you believe someone using the exact same technologies as M & R could do a better job (yes or no)?
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 02:42pm PT
|
richard,
the argument that you make about using the hammer w/out the drill sounds valid in the way that you make it, but perhaps using the hammer in such a heavy handed way on the micro-flakes on a slab would violate another ethical standard? at the very least an aesthetic one? in that way, your statements come off as unreasonable.
regarding repeats of WoS, isn't it one possible, entirely reasonable interpretation of the fact that no effort has been sustained on the route, and no other line has been established up the slab, to conclude that the sort of climbing (be it the style or the aesthetic value) is simply unappealing to the vast majority of modern aid climbers? (didn't ammon describe the climbing as "tedious"?)
EDIT-
the same could be said about cutting edge free-climbing slab routes, how many climbers lie in bed at night, visualising themselves sending hard slab? it doesn't mean more climbers couldn't do them, they are just into other aesthetics, for whatever reason(s).
/EDIT
so perhaps others view the route as not worth the trouble?
i am not saying that is 100% the case (how could i or anyone know?), but i think it's at least woth considering, on some level, that if the climb were viewed as appealing, there would be more interest in it. look at pete and ammon, was there interest in the line itself, or in the controversey that surrounds it?
i am not saying this to knock you down at all, but your post above does come across as patting yourself on the back a bit for being "hard" enough to persevere- i expect you meant to do that without the implication that nobody out there is as "hard" as you(?) 'cause the world is full of sickos, and plenty of them own some gear.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 02:48pm PT
|
Roger, you at least attempt to step up to the plate, and for that I am grateful. In all you've said (nice, long post, BTW--but I'm gunning to beat you with this one!), however, you yourself acknowledge that there are many "grey" areas, even as we try to strive toward a more normalized standard. My point has been that the "grey" areas are not even "ethics" enough to be "grey" yet, because nobody seems to want to ante up with even the APPLIED ethic that might define the boundaries.
Now, at least you've taken a stab at the applied side of ethics. I would argue that this is extremely premature, since without a metaethic, applied ethical discussions quickly turn into raving fits in a vacuum. Just look at abortion debates, or discussions about what "should" be done in the Middle East! These are classic "applied ethics" discussions in the absence of ANY metaethical position.
It has been floated that we CANNOT agree on any metaethic, so we have no choice but to jump straight to applied ethics. I disagree. The vast majority of people are deontologists in their ethical THINKING, and they are consequentialists when "real life" impinges on their ethical thinking. Thus, most people can be brought to a theoretical agreement, but, being people, most of them will NOT abide by that agreement once they start to see the implications. Thus, they intentionally choose inconsistency rather than LIVE by the principles they theoretically espouse; they prove to not be intellectually honest.
That very problem exists on this thread. The contrast between ZM and WoS nicely illustrates the problem. The FA team of ZM removed something like tonage of rock to make their way up a "natural" line, while Mark and I removed something like a gram of rock to make our way up an "unnatural" line.
However, since you DO step up to the plate, I will consider your suggestions as you gave them:
-Difficulty: Both WoS and ZM are difficult. WoS may be "more" difficult, as people who have done or worked on both suggest.
-Damage to the rock: WoS did FAR less rock damage than ZM. This point is now beyond dispute.
-Beauty of the line: Oooo, careful now! At this point we're making an already muddy subject (applied ethics) even more muddy by introducing aesthetics into it! Big mistake! I'm not going to go there. This point shouldn't have anything to do with an ETHIC.
-Conforming the climbing to the natural line: Both ZM and WoS did this. Now, of course, what counts as a "line" has changed (and continues to change) over time. The features WoS puts together are small, but they exist. The problem that makes this point intractable is that "natural" is another aesthetic judgment. Are all slab climbs "unethical" because they utilize tiny features and require drilled protection? This point fails to explicate.
-Adherence to standards that allow subsequent ascents: Both WoS and ZM do this. There is nothing in principle keeping people from doing a SA of WoS. We did not, contrary to what Christian continues (in the face of the evidence) to float: "design the route to keep people off." Well, we DID "design it" to be HARD for US (as hard as WE could handle at the time), so I guess if that is keeping people off, then we did "design the route to keep people off." See the point? This is another element of the applied ethic that fails to explicate.
Your summary statement is better: "A normative statement might be: 'Climb new routes only on natural lines following features of the rock. Do not reduce the line to difficulty standards below the current standards by enhancing holds. Do not artificially add to the difficulty of the line. Choose techniques and gear that are commonly available so that your route can be repeated by climbers with similar skills. Do not use techniques or gear that damage the rock—'leave no trace behind.'"
I think most people would say, "Yes! Something like that is exactly what we are after." However, there are many, many problems here. I've already pointed out the problem of "natural lines." Now, what are "current standards" of difficulty? How does this point distinguish between "enhancements" that actually make the route and the placements HARDER (as with WoS) and "enhancements" that do "reduced the difficulty" below "current standards," whatever those might be?
The point: "choosing techniques and gear that are commonly available" seems like a red herring, and it is one that has often not been followed. HOW "commonly available" must gear be? And what's the ETHICAL violation in expecting people to walk up to your route (having the needed info in hand about what exists on the route) and then having to decide what tactics and gear they had best employ to get up it?
And the final point, "leave no trace behind" works poorly in backpacking and not at all in climbing. Unless we strive toward this "ethic" by entirely-nude free-soloing of big walls, EVERY ascent leaves traces behind. This point is not just some "ideal" we should strive toward, even knowing that we won't reach the "ideal" because it's better to strive toward it than to not, like your actual admission of this point when you say,"The world ain't perfect." This "ideal" is so utterly inapplicable in principle that it is useless. If, instead, you want to say something like, "minimize damage," then that at least seems remotely applicable, since it says "minimize" rather than "do no damage." THIS, at least, SEEMS like an ideal we should be striving toward. Now its problem remains that "minimize" is a completely relative term, so, for example, this principle fails to explicate in the distinction between ZM and WoS. ZM is viewed as laudable, while (at least by a few here) WoS is not; yet WoS "minimized" damage far more than did ZM. So, I remain unconvinced about the practical applicability of this principle.
As I've said, I don't think that JM's distinction (as clear as it sounds to some) is anything more than an unprincipled, arbitrary line. It seems good to the very same people who seem quite comfortable with the FA team on ZM intentionally beating the crap out of the rock with just a hammer pick. If Mark and I had employed such tactics on WoS, we would have caught even more hell for it! There is simply no grounds for debate that the tiny, slight "modification" we did on WoS is insignificant, especially compared to the heavy-handed use of the hammer (alone--how glorious!) on ZM. Yet, John's principle fails to filter ZM's tactics out (as it properly should) along with WoS's tactics. The line is arbitrary and fails to abide by even the "minimize damage" principle we might have ALL agreed with earlier. Sigh.
Really, we should wonder WHY the "lofty" standard suggested by John fails in exactly this way. There is something very interesting to be learned from the fact that ZM is not called "bad" even though it was ascended using tactics that utterly violate the POINT of John's ideal (and the "minimize damage" principle). John simply can't bring himself to bash on the ZM FA team! They are just too respected! He just can't bring himself to say, "Damn, guys! I never realized that you literally beat the living crap out of that route! 'Hammer only' or no, such heavy-handed tactics seem obviously FAR beyond the sort of 'rock destruction' employed by the WoS guys! I guess to be consistent, as I backhand slap those guys I'm going to have to forehand slap you guys!" But no such sentiment exists. When SOME people beat the rock into submission (reread Peter's posts on the subject!), that's just fine, but when OTHERS do far less, then that's fodder for hundreds of posts and vilification.
This brings us to the real issue in "climbing ethics." You and others have suggested that "we," the "climbing community" collectively share some sort of basic instinct about what "good" and "bad" climbing is. But if the climbing community AT LARGE should learn anything from WoS, it is just HOW fractured its "ethics" are, and HOW much the "community" depends upon the "judgments" (all scare quotes) of a few "top" climbers. When pushed, however, we see that these "judgments" are based upon NOTHING, or, worse, they appeal in circular fashion to the "community," which is itself supposedly deriving its "ethics" from the few at the "top." Well, perhaps I've been a bit too harsh to say that the "ethics" at the "top" are based upon NOTHING--really, they are based on something: a purely self-interestedly, unprincipled, pragmatic assessment of WHO gets to use the "limited" resource, rather than WHAT gets done on that resource.
Let me make myself clear: I am not the one who thinks that ZM is a "bad" route because it used heavy-handed hammer tactics. John SHOULD think and say that, because his (and the "minimize damage") principle demands it. Otherwise, his utterly arbitrary line is quite apparently morally bankrupt. But, I have no such arbitrary line, and so I am not forced by consistency to say that EITHER WoS or ZM were "bad" routes because they "modified" in their various ways. I think ZM was a GREAT route, and I think that such routes, put up in that STYLE, are just great!
But STYLE is all I really hear about on this thread, not ETHICS, and excuse me if I put ZERO stock in the STYLE of a few guys who have suspect judgment IMHO.
Thank you for your efforts, Roger. I think you have lent some clarity to the overall discussion.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 02:56pm PT
|
Peter summarized: "It is important to remember the larger historical ethical context (and connundrum!)." I applaud you. As long as we do hash these things out in TRUE historical context, there MAY be some light amid the smoke.
I well recognize that no knock-down, overarching ethical principle is going to emerge from these discussions. What I am doing is putting pressure on those who have acted (and treated us) as though they have such a principle in hand.
How hard can it be for some people to say something like this?: "Yeah, WoS SEEMED to me to be going too far. But now, placed in its full 'historical context,' comparing it to a route like ZM done less than a year before, for just one example, it seems that the 'modifications' on WoS are actually insignificant and offer no real basis upon which to judge the route."
But, instead, a determined few will struggle to come up with THE "ethical principle" that will filter WoS and ONLY WoS out as a bad route, and I will continue to poke justifiable fun at such "principles."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:01pm PT
|
Werner, "Still carrying her? She's a pretty damn heavy one." Who is still carrying her? Maybe she seems heavy to you, but to me she's light as a feather and delightful; I love the touch of her, and I would never, ever put her down. I for one am having FUN, even though this matters to me (and obviously matters to many others--I didn't start this thread)!
Still waiting....
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:06pm PT
|
re:"When SOME people beat the rock into submission (reread Peter's posts on the subject!), that's just fine, but when OTHERS do far less, then that's fodder for hundreds of posts and vilification"
NO
if you want anyone to follow this argument you are trying to make, YOU supply these quotes you are reffering to, or link to them. otherwise, you are just masturbating alone.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:06pm PT
|
Fet, you had lots of things to say that resonate with all of us. Of course, as you know, what you had to say isn't usable to draw LINES of the sort this thread was supposedly seeking. But, perhaps our vague sympathies with what you've expressed is exactly where we SHOULD leave the matter. Of course, it's difficult to make WoS a BAD route with only such vague sympathies, so I predict some argue on, and I'll respond. But I'm with you!
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:12pm PT
|
I wrote this way upstream. I see that lots of other posts have intervened that I have not yet read, and I know that this may not seem to fit. I'm going to post it anyway.
Hey Richard, I may not be following all of the trains of thought here—there are a lot bouncing around, but it seems to me that you are mixing two different facets of the issues with WoS and a statement of ethics from John in an unhelpful way
If I have this right, most of the complaints towards WoS are based on the assumption or assertion that you and Mark manufactured the route in three distinct ways:
1. You enhanced hook placements
2. You used poor rivets to maintain ‘commitment’
3 You used too many bolts for the amount of climbing.
You have consistently said that you barely did any thing to enhance the hook placements and that you did on some occasions make placements to maintain ‘commitment’ (I think) and that your hole count is accurate with regard to the rivets and bolts. Ammon’s and Pete’s comments seem to support your contentions.
At least with regard to enhancing hook placements, I don't think that you can speak of an ethical issue raised by John about not enhancing features if you didn't do it. I don’t know if John accepts your account of your enhancements, but if there is no evidence of enhancement and no risk of ‘bogus’ placements failing with use (resulting in subsequent ascents having to redo the enhancements) then John’s comments don’t apply to WoS. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that it would be a silly argument with regard to climbing ethics since it is getting close to saying that the outcome doesn’t matter only the brand of tool that you use.
Your strawman—it would have been okay to pound away on the rock with only a hammer as long as you don’t use a second tool—says that you either you aren’t understanding the arguments on why the distinctions John and his cohorts made or you are just in a pissy mood.
In your last point you state..”I deny that there is any clear or even sensible line here. I assert instead that the term "ethics" has been bandied about ignorantly and uselessly, and I await hearing the genuinely ethical theory that can explain why anything we do to a rock matters…”
I certainly don’t agree with that. I get the sense that lots of folks have worked hard to understand what you and Mark did and why. It seems that John also tried to make a clear statement of his line of thinking and why. The lack of sensibility that you fail to see seems to be more the result of a tortured point-of-view that you have exerted onto the bare facts and onto the attempts to hang sensible words on the ethical issues that all first ascentionist face—at least on hard routes.
I am also at a lose as to why you seem to be taking the term ‘ethics’ off the table as a general descriptor of the rules and rational that is used by first ascentionist. Are you saying that these issues are not deserving of the name? There is a long history in Yosemite to referring to these issues as ‘ethics’--at least back into the 60s. And, lots of accomplished climbers have worried the issue that what we do on the rock does matter.
Roger
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 16, 2006 - 03:19pm PT
|
Madbolter-
Of course, you are under no obligation to do so, but since this topic keeps getting revived, I was hoping you and Mark could offer us a compilation of the route's statistics all in one place, so in the future, nothing is deemed 'out of context'.
Since the climb of the slab was quite unique for El Cap, it would be interesting to know for posterity the details of the slab part of your climb (and for potential future El Cap slab climbing ascentionists). In order to do so, it would be noteworthy to know:
On the nine slab pitches, how many drilled holes total, with the count broken down for a) belay anchors, and for b)aid placements?
Besides the 151 hook placements (were these all on the nine slab pitches?), roughly how many other gear placements were used for aid on the slab portion of the route? Also, how many feet, if any, of free climbing was done on the slab? And, of course, the final count of enhanced aid placements.
I'm also curious to know the estimated total climbing distance on the nine slab pitches, verses the actual vertical height of the slab (i.e. how much rope was left after each pitch?).
An original topo would be nice to see, and whatever details (similar to above) of remaining four pitches of the route (I'm assuming the final four pitches were more traditional pitches in terms of new climbing on big walls, following cracks and the more obvious natural features).
As you mention, "after all these years" I am still misinformed about your climb, but to be frank, until recently, I had never given the route much thought. Now I'm curious, from a big waller's perspective, of the definitive details.
cheers
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:19pm PT
|
Well, Matt, "masturbating alone" seems pretty redundant to me, and clearly on this thread I'm NOT alone, but I'll rise to your challenge anyway and supply a few passages from Peter earlier.
Peter says, "I think that there is lots of grey, and infinite shades of grey, black and brown depending on where you swing your hammer." I quote this first because I want it CLEAR that I'M not holding ZM to some artificial "ethical" standard, and I'M not the one attempting to say that a "modified" route is BAD! MY views are consistent with BOTH ZM and WoS being valid routes!
However, the "swinging of the hammer" IS the point of what Peter goes on to say:
"[Bridwell] admonished me, 'Don't go pussyfooting around up there, beat that sh#t with your hammer! swing it hard!' 2nd go, I pound the loose stone like Thor, sending a black barrage of detached diorite to the talus...."
"Can't get a freehang twisting hook to quite stay on the gentle slope, I whack the hammer a few times, now there is a powdery little spot and my hook stays."
"Sometimes the drill, aimed straight down, made a sloper hook work on an obvious big feature that would have felt wierd to dowel around. The limits are subjective...."
"If you are good, you know when artistry turns to a travesty and you take the other path."
You challenge me to supply the quotes to justify my "beat the rock into submission" line, and I think to any reasonable person I have just done so. We did FAR, FAR less than this, and WoS has been called a route "beaten into submission." BRIDWELL said, "Beat that sh#t with your hammer! swing it hard!" And many pounds of rock go to the talus. If WoS was "beaten into submission, then so was ZM!"
Again, I say that if we would have employed such tactics on WoS, the results would have been obvious (rather than invisible, as our FEW mods are). Contrast "beat that sh#t" with our oh-so-gentle tap with the tip of a drill to remove a single crystal, and you can MAYBE get my point.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:47pm PT
|
that's just great richard, but you clearly miss my point and supply these snippets out of context, expecting that anyone interested in the context is willing to seek it out, in order to follow along.
EDIT-
i'll do your work for you, here is the whole post that you selectively quoted. for the record, it seems that in the context of peter's post, those quotes are not what you paint them as- for examplt the "thor" bit was wrt rotten loose rock, is that "context" unimportant to you?
"Thanks John for adding a rational new begining out of the emotional chaos on those 'other threads'.
I liked your description of Walts ethical stance. However, I think that there is lots of grey, and infinite shades of grey, black and brown depending on where you swing your hammer. I liked that one photo of the little hook on the flawless white rock, laughing at my memories of some hooking on black and brown dried mud on the other side.
My second aid wall was our first try on Zenyatta Mondatta. (the first 6 pitches had been done years before). Bridwell showed me how to place a copperhead at the base then sent me up there on the first pitch, days later I got the first new lead, the lightening bolt roof. I was 2/3s up the first black corner when I ripped about 40 ft. (first and last fall on new ground) I had been trying to copperhead and nut through some hideous loose chunks stuck in the corner. When eye to eye with Jim, dangling there after the fall, he admonished me, "Don't go pussyfooting around up there, beat that sh#t with your hammer! swing it hard!" 2nd go, I pound the loose stone like Thor, sending a black barrage of detached diorite to the talus, behind the choss is some interesting terrain, cam placement, good copperhead, then a really strenuous roof. One tier in the roof has a shelf crying out for a hook. Can't get a freehang twisting hook to quite stay on the gentle slope, I whack the hammer a few times, now there is a powdery little spot and my hook stays, next move is the most strenous machine head rivet I have ever placed, over the lip on the crystal flawless black wall. Did I agonize over the hammer taps that made a rare mid roof hook move possible?,
f*ck no! It was cool, and people still like that pitch.
I watched Java punch holes in the outside of strudel like layers of brown junk on the crux pitch of what a later party finished into Wyoming Sheep Ranch. He hooked on the 3" holes his hammer punched through when he was trying to drill a rivet.
Sometimes the chisel would be good to scrape away the grey soft stuff and lichen in the corner so you could get your copper to stick. Sometimes the drill, aimed straight down, made a sloper hook work on an obvious big feature that would have felt wierd to dowel around. The limits are subjective, I too have declined to do a chop job on a flawless gold corner on the headwall of Aurora, the most obvious feature on the upper half of that whole headwall was what we were aiming for, and chose to hook and drill right to join the Trip. If you are good, you know when artistry turns to a travesty and you take the other path.
Its all grey and it all comes down to taste and results. And the ethical consideration of those who will follow was always paramount in our minds. We did not beat our chests about how hard that stuff was, though we found it so, but how cool the climbing was, with killer aid moves on beautiful, swirly, consistantly overhanging stone. Though we made a couple of pitches slightly long for 1981, we set out to craft a classic that others would enjoy for years, and by all measures with ZM and Aurora we pulled that off. I have never had anyone come up to me and state that so and so section was a chisel job or a pegboard, and yet we clearly did not have any black and white limitations on what we did with our hammers. You were supposed to make the best possible move in every instance, be bold, and not waste time.
Maybe the later 80's saw JM, Walt, et al. responding with a purer stance in reaction to our more pragmatic style of reporting. Certainly standards should advance and all, but I think all the best nailers, did it more or less the same, after a few ascents every route seems A3+ or as I prefer, Not Too Bad, anyway. Even though I was a teenager then, like Bridwell in mid-life, I was dealing with starting a family etc. We did not take it all so seriously as you new turks, but we had a great time aid climbing!
Perhaps this is the right moment for a classic Birdism, in the middle of the Kauk/Chapman/Bacher rap bolt wars, Jim said "On your dying day, do you think it will matter what you did on this rock or that?, no, all that really matters is how many people you helped along the way."
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 03:52pm PT
|
Yikes!
Richard, I feel that the major point is being missed. You keep harping on the fine scale of rock alteration when the issue that caused you so much grief was large scale, ie. choice of line, and total holes to force that line. ZM and WOS do not compare by virtue of geology, one is a steep line through big sections of loose black rock, the other a glacier scrubbed slab (albeit steep) of some of the finest grain solid granite anywhere. And the counts of rivets and bolts are pretty far apart.
I gave as an example the worst section of ZM in terms of deadly dangling chunks that needed to be removed. (I never claimed we only used a hammer and never a drill or chisel either). Regarding WOS, no one back then really knew what you had done up there, at the time it did not matter, since the impression was that the "line was forced" by virtue of its seeming blankness. Since, as stated above no one was that interested in trying your line for aesthetic reasons, no one knew or seemed to care what the actual climbing consisted of.
ZM became an instant classic and is still sought after by aid climbers from all over the world. No one came down and complained about any alterations, because there were few, and made sense in the overall quality of the climbing. A couple of years later John M. and crew were looking to take the lead in establishing the next generation of aid climbs and their ethical stance about alteration made total sense in the context of fewer "natural" lines remaining. The game had to be refined or less experienced climbers would take some of the tactics we judiciously applied and really ruin a route with heavy handedness.
You might not want to go into the "aesthetics" issue, but I think that is the main point and the traditional point (see references to RR above).
How about this for an idea. Did the widely publicized condemnation in 1982 provide a note of caution for other would be first ascentionists? Perhaps your "crucifixtion" made everyone else think hard before embarking on a new project. Maybe what was a terrible experience for you was a good thing for big wall climbing in general.
Peter
ps. what is RoF?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 05:17pm PT
|
Peter, you make many points, and many of them have been made before. So I'm not sure what will be the most effective way to respond. Perhaps I should just address your points about ZM first.
Matt suggests (and your post seems to make room for) the idea that "beating that sh#t" was an isolated incident. I have two comments.
First, you now call the rock you removed "deadly dangling chunks that needed to be removed." Perhaps I'm mincing fine points now, but I have sizable experience with "deadly dangling chunks" (as anybody who knows my background will enthusiastically attest), and I know this: stuff that's really "deadly" doesn't take "beating that sh#t" to remove it. If you were beating away like Bridwell told you to, then I submit (again, with LOTS of loose-rock experience) that such "chunks" could have taken some other placements. It's a happy convenience that your "removal" revealed some very nice-gear placements. But, seriously, who knows what I could have done with your "deadly dangling chunks;" perhaps you beat the difficulty level down, and thereby ruined that route for ME! And before any of you are TOO dismissive of my audacity to suggest this, keep in mind that I cut my teeth on the loosest, most "absurdly dangerous" (according to Yaniro), overhanging, dynamite-blasted wall imaginable. None of you are in a position to know what I am capable of with loose, hanging chunks. There are others on these threads, however, that can weigh in about this very point: I KNOW loose! So, don't beg the question against me here. It is a legitimate concern (since it seems to be so when leveled against WoS) that perhaps the "modification" on ZM actually dumbed-down the route compared to what I could have put up. (Actually, I am NOT concerned about this, although I do think I can use chunks that others would not; I make this point just for the point.)
Second, I talked to Bridwell personally within a couple of years of the ZM and WoS events. I ran into him at J-tree, and we got to talking. He stated to me that he felt people were completely missing the point (as your quote from him earlier suggests) about WoS and that there were "lots" of "modifications" (not just drilling) on ZM. While, in virtue of the Bird's reputation, everybody would be inclined to grant that the ZM modifications were "judiciously applied," WHAT counts as a "judiciously application" just IS the issue at hand. You say you "judiciously" cleaned off "deadly dangling chunks," while I can reply, "Dude! You just 'beat the sh#t' out of perfectly good rock!" It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? I say again, if you had to try THAT hard to remove that stuff, then I am confident that it wasn't "deadly dangling chunks" from MY perspective! (Don't mean to piss you off or trammel your--justly deserved--pride, Peter. My point IS that people just don't know what others are capable of, so don't make ignorant presumptions about me either.)
Now you suggest that I "miss the point," and then you try to turn this into an aesthetic discussion. But that has NOT been the point of this thread from its very first post. (Maybe we should start a thread ABOUT aesthetics.) John started this thread TO address what counted as "legitimate" modifications, and that has been the driving question behind all the "ethical" discussions so far. If there has been this or that mention of aesthetics, I have seen that as an aside rather than THE point.
(It DOES seem, though, that as people fail to answer my ethical questions, they turn instead to the same old arguments about why WoS is bad, bad, bad; all without ever dredging up anything ETHICAL to discuss about it. So, perhaps aesthetics WILL be the magic bullet that will once and for all make it CRYSTAL clear to everybody WHY the Valley boys did what they did and WHY WoS really is the POS they insist that it is.)
However, since you now think that aesthetics is THE point, I will turn my attention that way for a moment.
Here you seem to suffer from some misinformation: "as stated above no one was that interested in trying your line for aesthetic reasons, no one knew or seemed to care what the actual climbing consisted of." Hmmm, several points here. In point of FACT, many people have been "interested in trying [the] line," both before and after WoS was put up. I'm not sure who the "no one" is to which you refer, since SA attempts began almost immediately after the route was finished BECAUSE the locals felt they had something to prove. Mike Corbett (later echoed by Bill Russell) assured me: "My grandmother could do that route," to which I replied, "Then I guess your grandmother could chop it legitimately." MANY people tried. I know for a fact that Bill Russell's grandmother must be a MUCH better climber than he is, because at least HE couldn't even do the first pitch, and he assured me that SHE could get up the route! Of course, who knows what condition she is in now--I shouldn't expect a vindication ascent from her, I guess.
Regarding the reason why more people have not tried (how many would be enough to threaten your perspective???), you beg the question to assert that the aesthetics of the line are the reason. And, even if that were the case, the aesthetics of the route have no bearing on its validity, nor do such considerations justify decades of slander about the route (slander that has been about entirely different points), as you seem to suggest. The fact that "no one knew or seemed to care what the actual climbing consisted of" IS the point we have decried for decades. If you don't CARE, then you aren't behind a multi-decade campaign of lies! But if you DO care enough to maintain an ongoing slander campaign, then you OUGHT to care enough to walk up to the base of the thing and SEE that it is not what it was claimed to be. Certainly the many who tried and failed on SA attempts knew that what was said about the route was lies: there is no bolt/rivet ladder there.
But, aesthetics aside, YOU seem to get back to THE point when you again reference the drilling ratio. You assert that ZM was an "instant classic and is still sought after by aid climbers from all over the world." Hmmm, by that standard, WoS is also an "instant classic." It, too, has been tried by climbers from all over the world (I happen to know first-hand of an Austrian team who came over to give it a shot and decided upon LOOKING at it that they would be better off not trying it.) But you move on from the "instant classic" point to THE point yet again: "No one came down and complained about any alterations, because there were few, and made sense in the overall quality of the climbing." Hmmm, the fact is that NOBODY has come down from WoS and "complained about any alterations," because ours were even fewer and INVISIBLE!
THE point you and others seem unwilling to acknowledge is that if WE had done on WoS what YOU did on ZM, we would have gotten even more castigated for it than we already were. WE are the ones who in hyper-honesty admitted to our few TAPS, and we certainly were NOT "beating that sh#t" at ANY point.
You make much of perception, but there was NO perception at that time of any modifications we were doing. You even admit that nobody really knew (nor took the time or mental energy to find out) what we were doing. Far better to take the "simple" view: Ugh... big, blank slab... ugh.... unknowns!... ugh... ugh... ATTACK!
I have no problem, in the face of this juvenile behavior, to say that the climbing community has benefited from the whole debacle. But I think the benefit has not largely been as you suggest. Even John himself earlier admitted that the 80's were "special" and that things went to hell in a handbasket in the 90's and beyond (there are many examples). So, apparently, people weren't getting the message: "Do new routes exactly the way WE tell you to, or you WILL pay the price." No, I think the message the climbing community at large has been getting instead, and will continue to get as this whole thing becomes more and more revealed, is that the Valley boys of that time OVER-reacted in an utterly idiodic and unprincipled way: "Dogs pissing on trees" (Harding).
Some have tried to float that response as something noble and lofty, as you suggest here: "The game had to be refined or less experienced climbers would take some of the tactics we judiciously applied and really ruin a route with heavy handedness." On the face of it, as we have been discussing above, this SEEMS like a good thing. But it presupposes a lot of baggage that people don't want to come clean about, like issues of OWNERSHIP and RIGHTS; and I await hearing the "ethical" lines that are supposed to give a person or group the right or responsibility to judge another route and justify human rights violations like what happened to us. Again, I'm not whining, but the ENFORCEMENT policies of these supposed "ethics" seem WAY more important to me (and should to all of us) than the stylistic issues that people have made so much of in this thread. On that note, people should pause and take a good dose of Bridwell's quote (as delivered by you): "On your dying day, do you think it will matter what you did on this rock or that?, no, all that really matters is how many people you helped along the way."
Did we get any "help" along the way??? Ask yourselves that question, seriously. Did we get any help?
I'm happy to discuss the aesthetics of WoS compared to other "classic" lines and compared to other slabs (because, surely, slab climbing--even with its higher dependency upon drilled placements--is valid and aesthetic), but nothing about THAT discussion can be elevated to the level of ETHICS; and none of that discussion can account for the intentional ignorance (even in that historical context) of a few rabid people.
Compared to ZM, it's actually amazing and a testimony to our restraint that WoS has as few holes as it does. We did about 1800 feet of new climbing, about 1300 feet of it on a "blank" slab. Given that ZM ascends almost entirely crack systems, AND it is 16 (rather than the claimed 18) pitches, AND its total climbing is at most 2000 feet, I think our drilling ratio is looking pretty good by comparison. But, that's a purely subjective, aesthetic call, isn't it? WHO gets to ENFORCE such calls, and on what basis? THAT is an actual ETHICAL question... finally.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 05:18pm PT
|
I don't agree,, ,Richard, that ethical arguments are as bankrupt as you say. For sure they are tiresome, and until you have a drill in hand or are why strung out and deciding if you should go down or continue, they don’t make a bunch of sense. Climbing ethics are all about competing issues--I tried to name them--that demand absolute trade offs--there is no single solution that resolves all of them on hard aid. That doesn’t mean that there are not better answers than others.
You seem to be arguing that because the stated differences between ZM and WoS are hard to articulate then the distinctions don’t matter. There are two big problems with this: One, it becomes an argument about the words that one chooses and the number of tradeoffs one keeps in the argument rather than the problem itself. Secondly, it may be the case that differences in the ZM wall and WoS are not worth arguing about, but this doesn’t support an argument that climbing ethics are meaningless.
The first problem with ethics arguments in climbing is that it is all based on rules that we set for ourselves. There is nothing beneath them other than what we decide. So an attempt to define the metaethics in a pure sense without reference to the normative and applied ethics is nonsensical in rock climbing--you can always walk up the back, forcryingoutloud. None of us would ever argue the ethics of walking up the back versus climbing up the front—that’s not an ethical distinction.
This is also the reason that the local community is so important in formulating what the rules are—even if they act badly. If this problem of defining the metaethics blocks a discussion on what is okay to do on first ascents, then change the spelling or give it a new name. (There is also a useful distinction to be made between ethics in climbing and style—style can reasonably be restricted to what you do on your lead that has no lasting effect on the climb. I might also add there are elements of ethics that apply to way climbers treat each other—from belaying carefully to truthful beta.)
The second problem is that these trades offs are real. In Peter's hammer swinging, he was knocking off loose rock to find something solid underneath. (I think that there are also statements of other enhancements for placements to avoid rivets or bolts, but the hanging in space pep talk with Jim was about loose stuff.) I have done the same on free routes, sometimes to reveal a nice crack or good edges, and sometimes to create a really 'stuck-on-dumb-why-did-we-ever-come-up-here-let's-not-tell-anyone-piece-of-crap' Knocking loose stuff off is really different from the points John made about not enhancing placements (John even said that he couldn’t pull the block off because it would hit Walt.) and the points that made about only squaring up the edges you were hooking. A logical heuristic to follow in the one case—remove loose crap--gives nothing useful in the other—if you have to use a drill, fill it with a bolt or bolt.)
A third issue is pin scaring and hole maintenance as permanent damage to the rock. As a free climber 35 years ago, I worked through these issues and concluded with my cohorts that nuts, slings and bolts were all that we should use. We made a decision that bolt holes were less damaging to the rock (leave no trace behind is a poetic construction that means minimize your impact) than pin placements, and we learned to run out our leads to account the greater freedom in placing protection when ever we got scared. (We still pulled loose stuff off.) Lately we have caught some flak, collectively, for not putting in bolts more frequently. Aid climbers have a different set of criteria and reach different conclusions. El Cap climbers do not take this step until the route is hammered out and will accept clean gear. There is no way that I know of to reconcile these two starting points. It is a choice that each climber makes. Some happily follow one set of rules on El Cap and another in the Meadows.
I also don't agree with the idea of the quality of the line is not part of the argument becuase historically that is has been part of the argument. Changes in defining what is acceptable have always included this attribute. If it is hard to get your head around a heuristic based on the line, welcome to the club. But, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I think someone posted remarks about the 'Prow' and the trade off of the number of bolts versus the quality of the line. I remember the very well written account in Ascent by Glen Denny and that is what he talked about—the fine line and the thin nailing (including bolts). That's part of the deal in Yosemite climbing.
All of these elements are of part of the equation, but it is one equation with several unknowns—resulting in lots of potential solutions. Mentally I think of it as a spider diagram with each of the attributes on a vector moving away form the center. It is the combination that matters, but clearly the assessment of every attribute is conditional. (Royal stopped chopping on the WEML—because it wasn't a bolt/rivet ladder as he had assumed.) The spider diagram is useful also in the sense that once a certain standard is met along one attribute, then that new high point sets the stage for what is expected the next time it gets tested.
It sounds like by John's time, there was a calculation that manufacturing difficulty by avoiding holes at all costs was no longer sensible. Partly because the routes wiht enhanced features cannot sustain multiple ascents without being redone and partly because there is no breakpoint once you start down that slope to distinguish between ego-driven manufactured difficulties versus hard climbing up a natural line. This sounds like a pretty logically constructed point of view, one that leads to a cleaner set of rules that one can follow as the lines become more tenuous. This is a pretty clear example of the Yosemite ethic debates working in a consistent way through time.
(Just a note to everyone. None of this is a judgment of the ethical merits of ZM versus WoS. It is diatribe on keeping the lines of the argument straight.)
Time to sign off in these parts. Best, Roger
Good progress on the word count per post.
|
|
Bilbo
Trad climber
Truckee
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 05:23pm PT
|
Lets see the topo!!
|
|
MSmith
Big Wall climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 05:47pm PT
|
Deuce: ”I was hoping you and Mark could offer us a compilation of the route's statistics all in one place.”
A reasonable request, although not something I can do today, however. Also, those facts might be better placed in the WoS XXVI thread. A few answers to your questions which I can recall without finding a topo. I think we only used 1 hook placement above the Slab. There were a number of heading seams (esp. pitches 2 and 8) and perhaps 70 -100 feet of free climbing over the 9 Slab pitches (will need a topo to be more specific). Pitch 10 is a couple of parallel-walled cracks connected by 5 rivets. Pitches 11 and 12 offer some great heading in continuous, natural, overhung seams. We calculated pitch lengths by the amount or lead rope left.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 05:47pm PT
|
Richard I just read your post in response to Peter. I don't think this thread is worth continuing.
It is a problem that no one has repeated your route, so comparisons are difficult for everyone. For a few days now, there has been a sense that the original gripe about WoS was based on faulty information, but you seem not to have noticed since you keep arguing what Peter and Jim did on ZM versus what you did not do on WoS.
Since you appear to have made some progress in getting folks back to a factual basis, this is sort of fruitless, in my opinion. I think WoS should be evaluated on its own merits. John’s last couple of posts seem to solidly on that ground.
There is also a bigger problem for me in your last comments in several posts that you don't believe that there is any ethical issue to work through because there is no metaethic and there is no one to decide. There is no ethical problem because you don’t accept that this is about ethics and we are not here to discuss anything else. That is sort of like saying "we can discuss any issues you want but I get to pick the issues and the terms of debate."
Your argument settles quickly to "do what ever you want, nobody can judge it." Is this what you mean?
Roger
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 05:51pm PT
|
Roger, YES, something meaty, finally!
You say: "You seem to be arguing that because the stated differences between ZM and WoS are hard to articulate then the distinctions don’t matter. There are two big problems with this: One, it becomes an argument about the words that one chooses and the number of tradeoffs one keeps in the argument rather than the problem itself. Secondly, it may be the case that differences in the ZM wall and WoS are not worth arguing about, but this doesn’t support an argument that climbing ethics are meaningless."
No, I'm saying that the fact that the differences between ZM and WoS are hard to articulate indicates a deeper problem with the "ethics" of climbing than people on this thread have been willing to own up to. You seem to recognize this point in your second point. FIRST we've got to acknowledge that the common comparisons, such as between ZM and WoS are indeed "distinctions without a difference." Only THEN can we start to get clear about what really matters in climbing ethics. I maintain that as argued so far, climbing ethics (falsly so called) have been vacuous. But that does not suggest that I think that climbing ethics are meaningless--I myself have risked my life for my climbing ethics.
You then say, "The first problem with ethics arguments in climbing is that it is all based on rules that we set for ourselves. There is nothing beneath them other than what we decide. So an attempt to define the metaethics without in a pure sense without reference to the normative and applied ethics is nonsensical in rock climbing--you can always walk up the back, forcryingoutloud and none of us would ever argue the ethics of walking up the back versus climbing up the front—that’s not an ethical distinction."
THAT is what I've been driving at: the "rules" are simply ones we have set for ourselves. Climbing "ethics" are entirely subjective (unlike what most philosophers take ETHICS to really be about). This is why I keep putting "ethics" in scare quotes. While many on this thread have acted as though there is some firm, even hard-line underlying principle(s) that the rules derive from (and THIS has been used to tacitly justify enforcement), my ongoing pressure has been to make it clear that things are WORSE than just that there are "grey areas." In fact, it's ALL grey in the sense that it is ALL entirely subjective. "Climbing ethics" rely on an ethical theory like cultural relativism or even egoism. Such are entirely debunked "theories of ethics," yet, climbers subscribe to such theories to TRY to give some moral weight to what is nothing more than "rules to a game," so to speak.
Now, where things go astray in climbing is when people fail to recognize that they are just playing a game. They see people playing by different rules (as the perceive them, perhaps in error), and they respond like THEIR rules are THE rules that define the game! John doesn't put hammer to drill (or chisel) in HIS modifications! Wow! That's cool, and all, but it's NOT ethics! It's just how JOHN chooses to play the GAME. Peter puts hammer to chunks of rock that I might have been able to find placements in. Cool! That's how HE'S playing the game. Mark and I tapped a tiny crystal off of a FEW tiny flakes rather than to drill straight-in holes. Cool! That's how WE were playing the game. Distinctions at this level really are "distinctions without a difference," and at this level of discussion, we are NOT talking about ethics.
If you want to talk about ETHICS, then let's talk about the cultural relativism or egoism that underlies "climbing ethics" as they have been suggested so far. THAT would be an ethical discussion. The rest of this is just playing (marginally) different games. No more, and no less.
You make much of the distinction between hiking up the back side and climbing, and I think that's entirely right; but NOT as a question of ethics. There ARE "ethics" to hiking (thought of as rules to the game) in exactly the same way there are to climbing. True, it's a different game, but both are games nevertheless.
Once we recognize that these "rules to the game" are ENTIRELY subjective, and we acknowledge the moral bankruptcy of theories like cultural relativism and egoism, then it becomes clear that no one set of rules is "more pure" than another set, and people holding one set are not at liberty to set themselves up as the gatekeepers to keep others "in line."
Peter has expressed the great concern that has EVER been at the heart of WOEML and WoS: People HAVE to be kept in line so that newcomers don't adopt heavy-handed tactics and ruin things for the rest of us! I WELL understand the intuitive appeal to this refrain, but historically is just doesn't hold water. After our "chastisement" from WoS, Mark and I went on to learn even more "heavy-handed" tactics to be employed on other routes. I was WAY more scared, for example, on Winds of Change (solo) than I ever was on WoS, and the fact that I modified to run it out even more is what contributed to that fear. I didn't expect to die on WoS, yet I worried about death at several points on WoC. So, for what matters to ME about climbing (and what distinguishes it from hiking) is the RISK I perceive, the extent to which a route gets right into my face. Sometimes, "heavy-handed" tactics can make a route "better" insofar as it accomplishes what you want in your game--AND WoC is STILL no "hike." Furthermore, MANY others have adopted heavier and heavier handed tactics since WoS, so the grand "historical" message seems to be entirely lost! The gatekeepers aren't doing their job! Maybe Walt Shipley really should have picked us off with a high-powered rifle, as he threatened to do. Maybe nothing short of THAT sort of enforcement is going to get the message across to people. CLEARLY WoS didn't get it done! What the concern instead comes across as is something like Harding said: "YOU don't play the game right! So, YOU can't climb this rock! I climb it RIGHT, so this rock is MINE, because ONLY I treat it like it should be treated." So, PEOPLE are treated like sh#t in the distorted attempt to "save the rock," which instead usually means "saving MY right to do any route I have in mind whenever I happen to get around to it, and without any threat from 'newcomers' who might just get to it first." This has never been about purity; this has always been about perceived ownership.
So, you seem to be ready for an actual ethical discussion, Roger, and I would be very open to such a thing.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 06:03pm PT
|
"Let's see the topo" (Bilbo)??? Turn to your trusty guidebook. We haven't hidden anything, and that topo is as detailed as any other in the guide (actually, more so, because Meyers wanted to be sure that nobody would miss ALL those X's, so he "notes" that "there are many rivets on this route").
When I get a free minute, I'll scan the one topo we do have, and I'll post it on my site along with the other WoS pics and stuff. But you will see that there's no real additional detail than what the guide shows. We don't have the x-for-hole topo that we submitted to SAR way back when, so something of that level of detail isn't going to be forthcoming.
Regarding the other detailed data, I'll let Mark compile that for you, John, when he gets a chance. THIS thread will not be the end of it all, and it gets tiresome to be asked the same questions over and over. Of course, I don't expect everybody to read all the threads, but another point is that this information has been publicly available in the back pages of my book for many years now. Once Mark answers your questions on this thread, we'll take that info and post it to my site, so it will be easily accessible for all.
|
|
atchafalaya
Trad climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 06:05pm PT
|
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 06:08pm PT
|
I think there's really only one way to settle all of this...
--OR--
--OR--
My vote is for the Sumo Suits, personally... Of course, there was also the human bowling game too.
Edit: I take that back. The good ole boxing would be fun to watch! Those big giant gloves.... The jousting would be a hoot too and probably full of all kinds of action. Regardless, this all has to be done in the meadow.
|
|
madbolterI
Big Wall climber
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 06:25pm PT
|
Roger,
You wrote -
"Your argument settles quickly to "do what ever you want, nobody can judge it." Is this what you mean?"
No, Roger, that is NOT what I mean.
I am not interested in the throwing our hands up in despair. SURELY you've learned by now that I'm PERSISTENT!
I do agree that it is DIFFICULT to discuss WOS without information gleaned from a second ascent. We CAN still discuss ethics, however.
I don't particularly want to rehash EVERY point that has been brought up about the route over the course of the last THOUSAND posts.
I do appreciate John's new effort to focus on the route as it IS, not as it was SAID to be by members of the Valley clan who've SLANDERED us for the last twenty-five years!
I still feel chippy in my dealings with him, and for that I apologize. In re-reading his posts, I can see that he was making what seemed to be a GENUINE effort at real OBJECTIVITY in how he looked at our route (even claiming that he was "curious as a big-waller!").
Our route is FINALLY worthy of the great Middendorf's big-wall curiosity! Hurray!
Sorry, that was the OLD animosity. I'm turning over a NEW page.
John, I'll still allow Mark to compile that data. Perhaps it CAN be of some use to other potential El Cap SLAB climbers.
By the way, I still anxiously await answers Healyje's query: Was the slab OFF LIMITS to climbing? Could SOMEONE ELSE have climbed it in SIGNIFICANTLY better style?
I think it comes down to three factors: one- I'm religious and a philosopher; two - I can be SLIGHTLY wordy and come off as MILDLY pretentious; three - I'm a little bit of a computer nerd.
That is, apparently, THE FORMULA for future EL CAP HARDMEN!
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 07:04pm PT
|
richard-
in response to both yours and H's posts-
(and as i posted at 11:42am):
"regarding repeats of WoS, isn't it one possible, entirely reasonable interpretation of the fact that no effort has been sustained on the route, and no other line has been established up the slab, to conclude that the sort of climbing (be it the style or the aesthetic value) is simply unappealing to the vast majority of modern aid climbers? (didn't ammon describe the climbing as "tedious"?)
EDIT-
the same could be said about cutting edge free-climbing slab routes, how many climbers lie in bed at night, visualising themselves sending hard slab? it doesn't mean more climbers couldn't do them, they are just into other aesthetics, for whatever reason(s).
/EDIT
so perhaps others view the route as not worth the trouble?
i am not saying that is 100% the case (how could i or anyone know?), but i think it's at least woth considering, on some level, that if the climb were viewed as appealing, there would be more interest in it. look at pete and ammon, was there interest in the line itself, or in the controversey that surrounds it? "
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand, Man.....
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 08:51pm PT
|
yeah, but is it ethical to be Madbolter1, and MadbolterI at the same time????
Who is who????????? Name change or spoof troll???????????
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 09:08pm PT
|
Mmm... my alter-ego aside (madbolterl???), it's difficult to not be wordy when I'm holding up one end of a viewpoint virtually single-handedly. I try to keep it short! Really, really I do! But I just can't. I can't, I can't, I can't. Smite me! I wish madbolterl could issue short summaries like that before all the hard work has been done (although, there are a few accuracy issues there too).... but I won't dicker over them now.
Since Russ just asked, I have no idea who madbolterl is. I found the post funny, but in seriousness I don't endorse it. "Chippy?" I think it's clear that I've been far more than "chippy" with John at times! I do think that John has been trying to get the whole picture, in all honesty. But I also think that he's had a lot of presumption and bias to overcome, and that these have caused him to be more than a bit "chippy" with us during all these posts. I'm not "turning a new page" yet, although I don't bear John any ill will. Time, more info, and more thinking/dialog can bring people closer together in their views (which is all a civilized society can hope for), and I hope to hold up my end with John, Peter, Roger, and others with integrity.
I will respond to Roger later. Many good thoughts there, I think. But I just can't get to it right at this moment.
In all sincerity, I do thank you guys for your ongoing patience with me. I do get impassioned and wordy at times. Hard to know where to draw the line, and I DO care about climbing ethics VERY much!
Edit: (Ha ha, you thought you might get a whole post with no all-caps.)
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006 - 09:34pm PT
|
HAHAHA
Here we go... Nice catch, Russ.
|
|
madbolterI
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 10:34am PT
|
Oh NO!
I've been outed.
But, as MY alter-ego REFUSES to ENDORSE me, I suppose I'll just fade away...
Though I don't know WHY he won't validate me! I didn't KNOW that this name would cause such problems - I just RANDOMLY chose it and then RANDOMLY decided to post on this thread. Coincidence? Synchronicity?
|
|
Teth
climber
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 12:34pm PT
|
I am still reading over yesterday’s posts, so hopefully this still fits into the context of the conversation.
There are a couple of issues in this thread where I have to disagree is Madbolter1.
First, to be told by a Philosophy professor that the word “ethics” can not be applied to climbing feels a bit like a slap in the face. As a geomorphologist and cartographer I do not have the training to even participate in that argument. How should I know the precise definition of the word “ethics”? It just seemed like the most convenient term to use to describe a nebulous set of principles the climbing community has developed to avoid a multitude of problems which could arise from unfettered anarchy. Is there a better word? Style only seems appropriate for certain aspects of it.
How could Richard possibly expect a clear cut definition of climbing ethics? Climbing ethics (insert the more appropriate term in you know of one) is defined by a committee of thousands with local factors effecting local interpretations and is constantly changing over time as the members of the committee change. There are some core principles. One is don’t do anything which will cause the land owner not to want climber to climb there. Other principals aim at keeping things sporting, just as most anglers do not approve of fishing with dynamite (I don’t give a climbing example because the temptation to nitpick specifics tends to obscure meaning). Some are principles of aesthetic, which is contentious due to both people’s intense personal feelings on aesthetic and its subjective nature (does the fact that a French artist sold a can of his own faeces for $700,000 invalidate art by saying that people want Sh!t?). Other basic principles involve climbing safety, which is why bolts are accepted in some circumstances despite violating some other principles. Many of these principles conflict with one another and different people push different principles, so the argument is never going to end, yet it is the argument which educates climbers about the various issues and principles and allows them to make more informed decisions.
While “climbing ethics” get misused to justify inappropriate or even downright immoral behaviour, this is the nature of ethics. The Bible has often been used to justify downright immoral behaviour, but does that invalidate the Bible, or does it suggest that those Christians were conveniently ignoring important aspects of their own doctrine? What happened to Richard and Mark was a travesty and a reminder of what can happen when the community losses perspective and follows a few voices without question, but it does not invalidate the ethics themselves.
It will never be clear where to draw the line and some things can be argued both ways depending on which principles you give priority to, but it should be clear at least when something is well over the line. If someone was to put a real bolt latter up the apron would Richard and Mark think that was an OK thing to do? I don’t think so (correct me if I am wrong here). I suspect that they would think that was crossing the line, hence indicating that a line exists, however nebulous. I am sure though that R&M would NOT sh!t on the guy’s gear, for that is way over another nebulous line. It is hard to define the boundary of the sea when the tide is always changing, but when you have to swim you have probably crossed it.
I also don’t think that deuce4 started this thread as an attack on Wings Of Steel. I think that the debate he participated in on WoS raised some ethical questions which he felt needed to be examined on a more general level. Since WoS sparked this communal introspection it is bound to be used as an example in the debate, but the real debate here is what are the appropriate climbing ethics for aiding a slab? Since there are not a lot of slab climbs, or slab climbers, in the Valley, this debate has not been hashed out as much as questions of how to appropriately link cracks. I think this debate would be better served if Richard, as one of the founding fathers of hard slab climbing in the Valley, would participate in the debate rather than arguing that this debate should not take place.
Teth
[Edit] OK, I am caught up now. I implore madbolterI to stick around. He/she sets a good example for madbolter1. [/Edit]
|
|
madbolterI
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 02:27pm PT
|
Teth has CONVINCED me.
I am sticking around since I, AHEM, set a GOOD EXAMPLE.
I do wish to make a SERIOUS point.
I've closely read every post (I think) throughout the WOS odyssey.
Now is the first time that R & M are referred to as FOUNDING FATHERS of hard slab climbing.
This point was "hinted" at much earlier by elcapfool, who said that he could think of no route in the world quite like WOS.
This does NOT mean that the FAs become Founding Fathers, of course - that would require a sizeable number following in their footsteps. And it SEEMS to have been agreed upon that hard aid slab climbing will NOT become very popular. Choose your own adjective for why (hard/slow/scary/tedious/etc).
That doesn't mean that the TECHNICAL ASPECTS of WOS (ignore the political) do not have an important place in Valley History.
If we can AGREE that the FAs made respectable and reasonable decisions, THEN we can debate (with their "wisdom") what should be done on the future (RARE, but INEVITABLE) hard slab/aid ascents.
For it is a DYING art - SICK slabs are free climbed these days... and there are relatively FEW free climbers who climb slabs (most because they "have to" to do a route). Even fewer are interested in such a SPECIFIC type of hard slab aid.
PART of Richard and Mark's new place in the community should be as an integral part of discussions about hard hooking.
I also have a SERIOUS question for MY alter-ego:
Richard,
You and Mark are far from the "crazy-wild-men" who we think of as putting up the scariest routes. Yet I've heard you say (regarding your repeat of Intifada, for instance) that you were willing to die to see if WOS was what you thought it was (and I imagine you thought it to be a SEVERE PERSONAL TEST - though you had little idea in how many ways it would prove that...). What was your motivation for pushing the boat out so far? (as YOUR alter-ego, I have what I THINK to be PERCEPTIVE guesses. I will, however, let you answer)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 03:40pm PT
|
To reply to Roger, Teth, et al is not a trivial matter. There are some misunderstandings, but I'm sure I have contributed to those.
However I have two concerns before beginning. First, Teth seems to think that MadbolterI "sets a good example," and by that I take him to mean that MadbolterI posts in quick, sound-bite fashion. So, I'm faced with a dilemma. If I follow MadbolterI's "good example," then I cannot properly respond. However, if I properly respond, then MadbolterI will give his somewhat inaccurate summary (summaries always being easy to produce after the hard work has been done, and with nothing on the line regarding accuracy), and I will then find myself in the unenviable position of having to correct those addtional errors, while looking even more wordy than I already am. So, do you want some "quick and dirty" response (that will be either largely inaccurate or so superficial as to not really address the issues), or do you want a more lengthy, but philosophically careful, response?
Regarding MadbolterI, I have nothing to say to you until you produce your real name. I thought the whole thing was funny until I saw you posting on other threads. And you have just noted that you'll be "sticking around." So, now I worry about what messes you will get "us" into in MY name, as people don't happen to notice your carefully-constructed hoax. You ARE a troll, plain and simple, and this is the last I intend to respond to you until you come clean and put yourself PERSONALLY on the line like the rest of us. Drop the troll profile and post in honesty. Then and only then will I address you.
BTW, back on topic. I am NOT saying that there is no such thing as ethics in climbing. If you will re-read what I have said, you will see that I have only been saying that I haven't yet heard an ethical theory to account for the "principles" people keep trotting out. I have been saying that, so far, these "principles" are nothing more than "rules to the game," and that such rules cannot be elevated to the level of ethics in the utter absence of metatheory.
I don't deny that people care deeply, as do I (obviously). And I don't take John's creation of this thread, or the contents of this thread, as an attack on WoS. I am very comfortable using WoS just as an example, alongside, say, ZM. The contrast between these routes seems to work well to tease out the issues we are discussing.
However, perhaps I set the bar too high, in the sense that people don't seem ready to recognize that they use the term "ethics" as though the "ethical" debates we constantly have in climbing are significant at a level that they are not. I have tried to point out the reasons why this is the case, but people have simply jumped to the conclusion that I don't think there are any ethical issues in climbing. I DO think there are ethical issues in climbing. But, so far, I haven't heard ETHICAL discussions; I have only heard "rules to the game" discussions, and these are NOT the same thing (or, if they are, then a theoretical connection must be made). The problem with using the word "ethics" lightly or incorrectly, is that it gives people an undue sense of urgency, responsibility, even (oh, God!) ZEAL to enforce certain "norms" on the community. Well did Harding long ago refer to like-minded people of his day, "The Valley Christians." Nothing has changed since his day, and I merely point out that it IS the elevation of "rules of the game" to "ethics" that underlies and seems to justify such thinking.
So, if it's ETHICS we're going to talk about, then that will not be as simple as tossing out a few "principles" that we all SEEM to agree with. A CONSENSUS is not the same thing as an ETHIC. If you want the easy way, that's fine, but I will maintain that you're not doing ethics. If you're doing ethics, then I continue to ask: What's your theory? WHAT grounds your "ethical" claims?
Some have recently hotly suggested that I'm making this too complicated, that I'm intentionally overlooking the obvious. I respond that you are claiming certain things to be "obvious" that apparently are not. Just saying "there will always be shades of grey" is a punt as an explaination of the ongoing disagreements that have ever riddled the climbing community.
The problem is much deeper than you acknowledge. I can point it out this way: Some are climbing for "fun," and they believe that if they are not having fun, then something is wrong (with the route, with their beta, with themselves, etc.); others believe that climbing is a "discipline" of sorts, like martial arts, etc.; still others believe that climbing MUST have risk in order to BE climbing; while yet others believe that climbing should NOT be risky, but it should be intentionally stripped of whatever risks possible. If you can't get clear about what "climbing" is, then you have no hope of clarifying even the "rules of the game," much less any ETHICS that might apply to the activity. Yet, if you say something like, "Well, it's ALL 'climbing,'" then you have no way to distinguish between hiking and climbing.
There's much more to say, but I'm not going to be able to follow any "good example" this way.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 04:36pm PT
|
i don't really think it's valid, nor is it really fair IMO, to conduct a conversation/debate on bigwall climbing ethics in the valley with R&M, on the heels of 100s of posts that attack and debase them and there route.
all of that stuff is not absent because it's not all right here in this thread, and there is simply no way they can react or discuss this stuff w/out defending themselves and their route, intentionally or not, to a large degree.
ergo, this is a waste of time and bandwidth, carry on.
|
|
madbolterI
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 04:46pm PT
|
THE Madbolter wrote,
"or do you want a more lengthy, but philosophically careful, response?"
Sir, we (I) expect nothing less than this from you. And, frankly, I've not considered your posts wordy. Rather, as you note (defensively), that you are "wordy" by necessity; you have a lot to respond to.
This is true.
THE Madbolter also wrote,
"Regarding MadbolterI, I have nothing to say to you until you produce your real name. I thought the whole thing was funny until I saw you posting on other threads. And you have just noted that you'll be "sticking around." So, now I worry about what messes you will get "us" into in MY name, as people don't happen to notice your carefully-constructed hoax. "
First off,
I'm sorry that you don't find me funny. No, really. Really. I'm sorry. Heartfelt apologies.
I won't be sticking around for TOO long though, so don't fret. And I also will honor your request and will not post in other threads (I already said this in your little News Bulletin thread regarding your stolen identity). I will continue to post in this one for awhile, however. (and in your News Bulletin thread as well).
Notice, however, how I've not posted anything that would truly get you into a "mess."
Second,
I'm not the "carefully constructed" hoax that you claim me to be. Our names appear different. I didn't have to make it that way. You shouldn't be so offended. If I were anti-RichardJensen (or anti-WOS.... or just a rabble-rouser), I would have approached this much differently. I've actually enjoyed the vast majority of your posts - and AGREE with most of them as well.
Whatever happened to the old imitation/flattery thing?
p.s. My next trick will be a WBraun imitation. Posts will consist of nothing but Zen Koans. Or maybe nothing at all.
|
|
madbolterI
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 04:56pm PT
|
THE Madbolter wrote-
"You ARE a troll, plain and simple, and this is the last I intend to respond to you until you come clean and put yourself PERSONALLY on the line like the rest of us. Drop the troll profile and post in honesty. Then and only then will I address you."
Ah, I almost forgot.
My name.
last name...
bolter
first name...
mad
I know, it is lamentable. And quite a coincidence. What can I say, my Mom was a bit on the odd side. She did date WHarding, after all.
|
|
madboIter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 05:17pm PT
|
I'm intentionally confusing nothing. An example may help:
RTL (Right to Lifer): Abortion is WRONG!
PC (Pro-Choicer): No it's not. A woman has the right to choose!
RTL: Nobody has the right to choose murder!
PC: It's not murder. It's removing a clump of cells!
RTL: It's a LIFE! You're killing an innocent life! Of course it's murder!
PC: "Murder" isn't about killing just any old thing. Just because something is alive doesn't mean you "muder" it when you kill it!
RTL: It's a HUMAN BEING! Hello! ANY way you want to try to make this issue MORE COMPLICATED, the FACT remains that you are killing a human BEING!!!
PC: Are cells scraped from my finger a "human being?" Does the existence of human DNA make something a "human being?" NO! I'm not "murdering" to scrape off some cells from my fingertip!
RTL: You try and try to make the simple obscure! It's SO obvious! Why can't everybody just admit to the obvious??? A FETUS is a human being in a way that cells from your finger are NOT!
PC: Really? In what way are they different?
RTL: OBVIOUSLY, because left alone the cells from your finger will NEVER become a person, while a fetus left alone WILL!
PC: Oh, now you've smuggled in the word "person." What do you mean by that??? I think you realize that human DNA isn't sufficient to make your case, so now you want to add something in! And your "potential" argument doesn't fly. Just because a fetus is a potential person (or potential human being), as a clump of cells, they are NOT! I'm a potential president of the United States; so you had better start treating me NOW with all the rights and privileges of the President RIGHT NOW!
RTL: No, YOU have to add things over and above your mere existence to become a President, while a fetus will just naturally become a human being. (Forget I said anything about "person." I don't want to go there.)
PC: Noooo, I'm not going to forget, and I well know why you don't want to go there! What matters here isn't human DNA. What matters here is the distinction between PEOPLE and other living things we DON'T think we're "murdering" when we kill them! WHAT are the attributes of PEOPLE that make them different? That's the real issue here! And, BTW, you have simply punted on the "potential" argument.
RTL: No, you are throwing in a red herring when you start emphasizing "persons." The ONLY attribute that matters is HUMAN BEING! Can't you get that through your thick skull?
On and on. And my point is the NEITHER of these people are engaged in ETHICS. They haven't even gotten that far yet. They THINK they are doing ethics, but really they are just debating semantics and talking past each other regarding what the issues even are. Such "discussions" are ever the bane of those who want to "debate" without any clarity or agreement about basic terms or underlying ethical theory. We are at this same point in our discussion:
EA (et al): "Enhancing" placements is wrong (or at least bad, or at least "not as pure").
MB1: Really? Wrong? Bad? "Not pure?" What do you mean by those terms?
EA: Come on. Don't be intentionally dense. We all have a basic consensus about what we mean.
MB1: Really? I don't see it. What's the basis of this "consensus?" When you use a term like "pure," that's a relative term. Pure, relative to what?
EA: Pure, relative to NOT "enhancing."
MB1: Uhhh... I'm not trying to be dense, but that seems to beg the question. What I want to know is WHY this sort of, let's call it, "purity" matters. Why SHOULD we care about or strive toward such "purity?"
EA: It's less impact on the rock! It's obviously more natural.
MB1: And why should we care about "more natural?"
EA: Because, obviously, "climbing" is about USING the natural features of the rock.
MB1: Well, in that event, hiking does less impact to the rock, is more "natural" by any measure, and also gets you to the summit.
EA: Ahhh, but hiking is NOT climbing.
MB1: Ohhh, so something about "climbing" justifies doing SOME rock damage! So explain to me what this "climbing" is all about.
There are many paths to the same sorts of discussions, but none of them have gotten to the point of doing ETHICS yet. We still aren't even clear about our terms! And, regardless of what some have floated here recently, it is not the case that you can do "applied ethics" in an utter vacuum relative to metaethics. You can beat all around various bushes, but you can't actually make any progress. I thought this thread had some interest in making actual progress. Maybe I was incorrect about that.
Now, many of you seem to be quite content with this state of affairs, and who am I to introduce discontent? But, I heard scandalous rumors that this was an ETHICS thread, and I haven't heard any ETHICS yet. (And, BTW, whenever a student quotes Webster or some website definition to me in a paper, I shred it.)
So far, there's been lots of heat, yet virtually no light. I'm not trying to say that I am the ONLY ethical (or even educated) person here. ALL I'm saying is that we are not even clear enough about our TERMS yet to HAVE an ethics discussion.
Of course, perhaps clarity doesn't matter to most here, or most despair of ever getting the level of clarity I suggest. But they STILL want to be able to state the "obvious" that "enhancing" is wrong/bad/less pure. Sorry, but that's not obvious to me, and I haven't yet heard anything APPROACHING a case to make it so.
So, to answer Roger directly: In light of all I've heard so far, I say: Yes! Anything goes! The most people can RIGHTLY do is wring their hands and moan how they don't LIKE it (although, I suggest they really don't even know WHY they don't like it). If anybody wants to make an actual ETHICAL case about "enhancing," I'm all for hearing it, and I'd love for us to get clear about some of our basic terms, like "climbing," for instance. I do care about this, and I would love to see some clarity emerge (and I mean clarity, NOT just my own opinions; I have some opinions about what "climbing" means, but they are just my own opinions). If we can get to agree about some basic terms, and then some sort of overarching ethical theory, then we might actually start doing some productive ethics.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 06:09pm PT
|
Okay, so I have Richard’s answer to my question: ‘anything goes.’
So here is what I think. John started this post using the standard Yosemite term for ethics and then stated the changes in definition of acceptable use of drilling that occurred in his time in the Valley.
It was interesting and it made sense to me, a reasonable balance of competing issues.
As best as I can tell using 'ethics' as a term to describe these sorts of trade offs is pretty well understood by Valley climbers. One point of evidence is that I fully understand the points of ethics that Peter and John were making and they are from slightly different times and I am from a different world. I cannot even fathom the difficulty of what they climbed, but I understand why they care about the distinctions they are making. I feel the same way about the distinctions that Mark and Richard have made.
However, terms mean different things to different people. It is easy to get off on the wrong foot. I live with this issue everyday of my working life since many of people I interact with speak English as a second language. Over the years I have trained myself to 'hear' English spoken in constructions and word definitions that are based on many different languages. I am grateful that I do not have to switch among German, French, Swedish, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, and Spanish to get anything done. Apparently, English is very flexibly understood by many people.
I have learned to ask questions in such a way that I can understand the issues and points of view without insisting that the other person speak in my brand of English. If someone asks me how to say something correctly in English, I switch to professor mode and we talk about English—preferably over drinks and dinner. I don’t allow the two conversations to get mixed since that erodes to level playing field that is conducive to trust and understanding—if we disagree it has to be clearly understood what we are disagreeing on, and I am not in the business of evaluating anyone’s English skills.
Now about Yosemite climbing rules. I find the study of how Yosemite climbing rules change over time and why interesting. It is also clear that lots of climbers don’t. That’s okay as long as they follow them. These rules mean a lot to climbers who add risk to their climbs to abide by them—hell some folks even stand on tiny hooks rather than drill holes and then when they do drill holes they fill them with dinky rivets to maintain commitment. These climbers also show restraint in their climbing to abide by them, reducing coveted A5 ratings to protect the erosion of the climb. Also interestingly, when climbers from outside the area climb in Yosemite they seem to easily grasp the distinctions that are acceptable, which says a lot about how transparent they are. Complicated but somehow transparent.
And for sure these rules are important enough that people will aggressively push back on folks who don’t follow them, sometimes inappropriately so.
Conclusion off all this? It is not “any thing goes.”
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 08:07pm PT
|
Roger, I couldn't agree more! In the context you have just outlined, you are absolutely right: not just anything goes.
Of course, this isn't ethics, but probably most people will think I'm just playing semantical games to say that. I do think there are deeper issues (actual ethical ones) that underlie the rules to which we have been referring, and that real clarity is there to be had, but those issues seem not to really interest people here. So, I'll stop trying to address issues that people clearly don't care about.
The flip side of my capitulation, though, is that I remain utterly defiant about any fine-grained, supposed distinction between tiny chipping (using hammer and drill--gasp!--together) and bashing big hunks of rock loose with (just) a hammer. That distinction is not clear to me, but what is clear is that nobody is going to step up to the plate to actually attempt to make that distinction clear. Future "discussion" from me will take the form of questions (some of which will seem intentionally dense, but are indeed honest). I will laugh at "answers" of the form: "It's obvious that..." or, "We are all basically in agreement with...."
Carry on.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 08:34pm PT
|
ok madbolter1, you win:
"(And, BTW, whenever a student quotes Webster or some website definition to me in a paper, I shred it.) "
I'm not your student, but you obviously do not feel I am contributing anything but crap to this conversation... I'm out.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 09:43pm PT
|
Tiny chipping and bashing big hunks of rock is the same.
Steal a piece of gum from the candy store and steal millions from people is the same. Both are thieves.
Now go write a 2000 word essay .............. madmanbolter1
|
|
Roger Breedlove
Trad climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 10:20pm PT
|
This will be short and to the point.
As a practical matter, I think that you will get further in understanding Yosemite rock climbing rules if you think of them from a legal perspective rather than a philosophical perspective. I think the concept of rules based on precedent is a closer model. (The fact that the rules are not written down and the police don’t wear uniforms is irrelevant.)
You have had lots of space to in this thread to state something about what you view as the ‘ethical’ issues. Not having done so and then claiming no one is interested is bullsh#t.
Page 24 of Roper’s original guide has a short section discussing climbing ethics. It was published in 1964. Get off your high horse, Richard.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 10:24pm PT
|
Yeah you tell him, Roger.
He thinks he's GOD.
And don't write me a stupid 5000 word response nor a short one madmanbolter1, I don't care what you say.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 10:36pm PT
|
looks like you fell onto the tallus again...
richard,
regarding th difference between this and that-
do you ever wonder if this "defiant" side of you that chooses to define the differences, rather than seek to understand the definitions others have accepted for or attached to the differences, has in any way contributed to where we all are with all of this?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 11:05pm PT
|
Fell to the talus? Hmmm... What do you mean by that, Matt? Do you think that this little poorly-attended, kangaroo court of "public opinion," with its moment-by-moment vagaries of "opinion" has me freaking out on a moment-by-moment basis? Do you think that the discussion to this point has been such a waste that I have personally flamed out?
Werner, so, are you saying that the Bird is a really, really big "thief?"
Roger, so because I would like to see more clarity on this subject than the climbing community has heretofore attained (having been the brunt of some of its more ridiculous "obvious ethics"), I'm on a "high horse?" Please explain.
Ed, have I ever said you have contributed only "crap?" Does my asking for a more defined discussion count as treating the foregoing discussion as MERE crap?
Who is being defensive now, guys?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 11:10pm PT
|
BTW, Werner, it is of note that this is just another one of multiple times you have accused me of being "twisted" or "mad" or a "madman" or "thinking I'm God" or some other ridiculous thing. You seem to wait silently in the wings until you sense that "public" opinion (for a brief moment) had (again) turned against me, so you can take that opportunity to lash out with venom. Are epithets really the best you have to offer?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 11:35pm PT
|
Listen bub.
I got off work at 6:30 pm. I put in 10 hour days doing full vehicle installs. If you want to speculate on what I'm doing then fine.
People chisel, people enhance, people do all kinds of things, whatever man. If they say what they did then fine. If they don't say what they did then fine too. We all know what we did.
Bridwell does what he does and that is he climbs. He will climb till he drops. If you want to waste your time thinking how and what he does then be my guest. He could care less what you think about what he did.
He'll just keep on climbing, while you're still scratching your head trying to figure out your ethics.
Pioneers just do what it takes, the rest follow along and scratch their balls wondering .........
|
|
Mimi
Trad climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2006 - 11:41pm PT
|
And then there are those that scratch themselves to the point of bleeding. What about them?
|
|
dudethathangsaround
Social climber
parking lots around the world
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2006 - 12:04am PT
|
I think it is becoming very clear about what happened back in 1982...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2006 - 12:10am PT
|
Roger, I really like your "case law" model. There are many levels on which it seems to fit. Good stuff, IMO. Maybe a productive approach to this whole thing.
I think there are some interesting implications that arise from it, and you've probably thought of a bunch yourself.
More to say later. Thanks.
Werner, hard to know how to respond.... You've called me many names and posted many speculations about my mental state and character. John has flat-out called me an as#@&%e (although he has since returned to a reasonable approach). Mimi... well, then there's Mimi. And so on. I think the most productive thing you can do at this point is to start a new thread (and this really should have happened right from the first). Call it something like "Madbolter1 is an as#@&%e," and there you guys can just vent with your various sprays (this will be a thread that Mimi can absolutely dominate, BTW). That will be a whole thread devoted to the frothing at the mouth that has been interspersed throughout these other threads. It will hopefully provide the catharsis some of you need, and that way the rest of us who are actually trying to carry on productive conversations will know which thread to avoid. How about that?
|
|
Maysho
climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2006 - 12:19am PT
|
Oh man, this is getting totally tedious,
I now regret having shared my perspective from the FA of ZM, if you are going to harp over and over again about "bashing" the rock vs. tapping a drill to avoid the more relevant points, there is no more to say. BTW we were plenty good at climbing loose rock, diorite can form as hard mush that will powder out when you try put anything in, such were the blocks I described removing. (I can't believe I am now defending a 25 year old classic aid climb!). We earned the respect of our community and our peers by doing a good job on a good route. You got treated badly, I am sorry for you. Maybe now someone will climb your line, and you will get some respect for the hard hooking. I am not going up there because it does not look like a good climb to me.
Good Night.
Peter
|
|
Mimi
Trad climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2006 - 12:33am PT
|
PM, I'm sure most of us toiling with this controversy really appreciate you sharing your experiences about those classic routes. I certainly did.
And Dick, I mean Richard. None of your pitiful posts are safe from ridicule. Get used to it.
|
|
bringmedeath
climber
la la land
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2006 - 12:40am PT
|
This is such a pile of bullshit!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2006 - 03:05am PT
|
I had crafted a lengthy post, thinking that with some people here some clarity could emerge, and, after all, ethics and such is something I actually know something about. I could respond to Werner. I could respond to Mimi. I could respond to Peter. I could discuss the (really good) "case law" model that Roger suggested....
Then I realized that such a post indicated that I continued to really care; yet after reading the most recent posts from the vociferous, suddenly I realized that I just don't any more. This whole thing is an exercise in futility. There is literally nothing I can say, not even this very paragraph, that will not be intentionally misunderstood, and I'm just tired of it. Call even this "whining," I don't care.
There. I just deleted more than an hour's work. It's for the best.
Mimi, you're so right! I'm finally convinced. Ridicule, name-calling, and character-assassination are what you have to offer (you are not alone in "offering" it), and I've got better things to do with my time and energy than put up with any more of it. You've got nothing of value to offer me, and you clearly think that I've got nothing of value to offer you.
Many of you have tried to be decent, honest, and reasonable, and I'm grateful for that (John, I do appreciate what you were trying to do with this thread); but the "signal to noise ratio" here just isn't worth it.
Have fun, all. I'm off.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2006 - 03:11am PT
|
You can go on insisting that intent turns a 1/160th of a gram grain into a 10 pound flake, whether enhancements must be done with one hand tied behind your back rather than two-handed, or simply continue gerbilling around an epistemological priori vs. posteriori mobius strip, but here at the end of a voluminous litany I simply find it incredible it is still impossible to discern anyone's binary position relative to two dirt-simple, dumb-as-a-stump questions:
a) Should the apron be climbed?
b) Could any one of you climb it in significantly better style, or with a smaller "hole" count, given the exact same technology?
I've always known things were harder in the Valley than our simple S.I. hollers - I just never knew quite how hard.
I'm out of here as well...
[ Mark and Richard - if you're in PDX with some free time to kill give me a shout and we can hit Beacon. Would climb with either of you any time (as I would most of the folks in this thread.) ]
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2006 - 05:12am PT
|
I am with you healyje, those questions remain unanswered. Seems kind of hard for anyone to bitch too much about it unless they climb the route or are opposed to climbing that particular piece of stone. Seems to be one or the other would clear up some things.
I dont know what Mark and Richard did to piss Mimi off...You sure you didnt kill her pet poodle with a dropped sh#t bag? Or maybe you hit her?
|
|
elcapfool
Big Wall climber
hiding in plain sight
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2006 - 08:57am PT
|
Is it true?
Is it finally over?
Did we win?
I find it somewhat ironic this discussion is ending the same way my attempt ended. The same feelings return...
I could go on, but for what? There is nothing to be gained or fun here. This isn't what I thought it would be. I can't believe people actually enjoy this crap. I think I'm going to vomit...
I learned two valueable lessons in all this:
Be brief
Be funny
'cuz you can still be a jackass, and not tweak people too hard.
Oh, and to never use the Caps Lock key...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2006 - 12:16pm PT
|
Hahahah
Madman the bolter1, you're such a fragile bird.
When I said: "Pioneers just do what it takes, the rest follow along and scratch their balls wondering ........."
That was actually praise for you as you are the pioneer for your WOS. But you couldn't see it because you are so pitifully blinded by you're own delusion. What do care what I say anyways? It's just another fools opinion. If it doesn't meet your criteria than just skip over it. But you can't.
We are so bound, shackle and chain to our runaway minds.
Like I told you before, you need help, the kind that money can't buy.
I'm glad I take that help that money can't buy ............
|
|
bringmedeath
climber
la la land
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2006 - 10:26pm PT
|
Werner, is that nice? Help money can't buy... WTF??? I will say... CLIMBING ISN'T LIFE and all this bitching and crying over "ethics" is f*#king lame! If your climbing is what you base your life on, why even live? Why not base it on how you treat those around you. Many of you seem to walk through this world not trying to better anyones day but your own. I read this stuff and just hope I never end up sounding like this. Are you guys really happy and having fun anymore. Or are you just a fake person on the internet? I climb because it is something that is fun and gets you outside in spots fewer people visit.
I will do what I want because if... If I never tell anyone... how is it wrong? Just like, if a tree falls and nobody is around, did it really make a sound???
|
|
bringmedeath
climber
la la land
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2006 - 11:04am PT
|
Oh well Mimi...
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Oakville, Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2006 - 05:06pm PT
|
a) Should the apron be climbed?
Why the hell not? Pretty much everything else has been.
b) Could any one of you climb it in significantly better style, or with a smaller "hole" count, given the exact same technology?
Not bloody likely, by my observation.
|
|
Teth
climber
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2006 - 11:44am PT
|
Man, this whole conversation fell to the talus!
Richard, what does the word “ethics” mean? You have been fairly clear on what it is not, but I am left with no idea of how you define “ethics”. No wonder this conversation has fallen apart. You have hacked the foundation out from under the discussion and left no firm structure to build anew! I consider myself a fairly deep thinker, when I put the time into it, so if I had a framework to work with I might be able to add something to a discussion on ethics, but you have left me with no such framework. That’s not fair!
As to the rules of climbing not being ethics, I was thinking about this over the weekend and realized that we should probably call these rules “best practice”. Best Practice is the current buzzword describing the set of practices which are considered best within a profession. My wife works in child mental health and “best practice” in her profession mostly refers to how to deal with a kid without messing him/her up worse than they already are. Best Practice encompasses the practices that leading experts in the field think are best and the majority agree on. I think “best” refers to the best compromise between many conflicting concerns. Best Practices change over time as technology, paradigms of thinking, societal moral expectations and various other variables change. “Climbing best practice” seems like a reasonable substitute for the term “climbing ethics”.
I feel I am on shaky ground bringing ethics back into this, but I think that “best practice” can sometimes be a balancing of conflicting ethics. For instance, if you are in charge of a rescue operation to save an injured climber and conditions are dangerous, then you have a conflict of ethics. On the one hand it is not ethical to leave the climber to die, while on the other hand it is not ethical to put your crew’s lives in danger to rescue the climber. “Best practice” would be a set of rules regarding what was acceptable risk, so that accepted best practice would help you decide between the conflicting ethics. In the end you are the one who makes the call, but having established best practice makes it easier to make the decision in the heat of the moment, and easier to explain that decision to others after.
“Climbing Best Practice” would be the most accepted compromise between the many conflicting ethical, stylistic, ideal, logistical, technological, financial, aesthetic, etc. issues effecting climbing. (Yes, I realize now that ethics is only one of those categories.) Since Best Practice is a compromise between concerns which are not static or constant, best practice itself will change constantly over time. On the up side, people might be less likely to sh!t on other peoples gear over best practice (best compromise), than when it was called ethics.
Teth Cleveland
|
|
| Messages 1 - 136 of total 136 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Is it just what common practice has been, and thus ever immutable? For example, is cannibalism ethical - only for cannibals, for anyone, or nobody.
Let us know!