Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 01:19pm PT
|
And we wonder why the US Congress is a disaster area.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 01:30pm PT
|
"I just don't buy it that if someone finds something unethical or bad style that they have to participate avidly in that thing to be entitled to the opinion."
Do you really need it spells out to you?
Doing sports routes the best style is from the top down, boulder problems for the most part are wired and clean. These all go against what Ed claims is better style.
You can have your opinion based on limited experiences...kinda what gets us in trouble most of the time.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 02:09pm PT
|
Ed, you always have interesting ideas which is why hundreds respond.
Per defining "best style," there are two considerations. First, the style per the people climbing, and two, how that style affects the experience of others.
Deep waters ahead . . .
JL
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 02:13pm PT
|
Deep waters ahead . . .
Some of us would say deep waters behind, too.
John
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 02:34pm PT
|
We are making mountains out of mole hills.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 02:39pm PT
|
Mole hills surrounded by water
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 02:42pm PT
|
how that style affects the experience of others.
How does that style affect the appearance of others?
Sport, hangdog, french free, free solo, remote adventure sport hybrid, multi pitch, speed, impress the GF top ropers, old trad, new trad, GU sport... any trends?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 07:19pm PT
|
"He is limited in his scope to pass any opinion on things he know little to nothing."
I've climbed sport routes in the US, and I've climbed in Elbesandstein, once, and I've climbed in Canada and in the Northeast of the US... and I've climbed in Mexico...
but I didn't dedicate my life to sport climbing, that is true... and I've never climbed in Colorado...
given my limited experience on all sorts of climbing (I don't really boulder that much) I would say that I am not qualified to discuss the topic of this thread, that I was totally misguided in starting what I thought might be an interesting discussion.
THEREFORE, I will kill this thread off...
my idea will be to post one last time, taking the text from the OP and putting it in the last post, synopsizing the thread as I see it, and then killing off the OP.
This will happen sometime tonight.
You will no longer have to put up with my obviously naive, inexperienced and totally off target comments and go back to doing what you like to do without having to examine your actions, thus freeing yourselves from any responsibilities for you acts.
I'm sorry if the questions that arise from this discussion have disturbed you in any way, far be it from me to have you question what you do and why you do it. Especially since my definition of "best" is such an abhorrent idea.
Of course any style is appropriate anywhere someone wants to use it anytime they want, without any consideration outside their own pleasure.
I am happy for you.
Carry on.
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 07:51pm PT
|
given my limited experience on all sorts of climbing (I don't really boulder that much) I would say that I am not qualified to discuss the topic of this thread, that I was totally misguided in starting what I thought might be an interesting discussion.
THEREFORE, I will kill this thread off...
I hope you don't do that Ed. There are plenty of thoughtful comments and perspectives here, worth having around I think. (But I would think that, wouldn't I, since I authored one of them.) Remember that voluntary response surveys always garner a hugely disproportionate number of negative comments, which can easily give the impression that those negative views are predominant when they aren't even close. In this case I'm not sure the negative views are even predominant in this thread, they are just very persistent, and in the end they abandoned reasoning about content resorted ad hominen attacks (demolished by Melissa but no one seemed to notice). Don't sell the many silent readers short---they are perfectly capable of detecting all this.
I can't say I agree with you myself, or at least am not sure I fully agree with you, for reasons I tried to elucidate. But the discussion has been interesting and valuable for me, and I think it deserves to make its way into the the archives, where like almost everything else it will eventually fade into obscurity, perhaps to be revived from time to time.
My only real gripe is I posted a set of pictures that I thought were really funny, and you guys were all so grouchy no one managed so much as a chuckle. Oh well, maybe my sense of humor was off the mark.
I say leave the thread alone Ed. This post is number 518; it's not as if folks aren't interested in the topic. It is what it is, and it ain't all bad.
|
|
drljefe
climber
El Presidio San Augustin del Tucson
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 07:54pm PT
|
Don't nuke it Ed.
This thread has been a good discussion at times and a total sh!tshow at others but it's helped me examine what I feel is the "best" style. No conclusions reached!
But really it's helped remind me that we're all fortunate to be climbers at all, and even more fortunate to have the opportunity and drive to seek out first ascents.
As long as you're not totally botching the job/stinkin' up the joint, having fun, and coming home safe, you're style is cool with me. The "best", in fact.
I thought a lot during this thread's life.
It's a good thread.
You certainly have my respect, and many others' too.
|
|
thebravecowboy
climber
in the face of the fury of the funk
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 07:59pm PT
|
this thread should stay.
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 08:16pm PT
|
Deleting your own thread is comparable to chopping your own route. You established it and have no control over who follows. Unless you have inadvertently bolted someone else's line, leave it to history.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 08:23pm PT
|
Your idea of best style is correct for the species of the time. The best route leaves no trace, with extinction of the dinosaur race you must erase.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 08:27pm PT
|
the original opening post to this thread was:
"It is style which complements affirmation with limitation and with humility; it is style which makes it possible to act effectively, but not absolutely; it is style which enables us to find harmony between the pursuit of ends essential to us, and the regard for the views, the sensibilities, the aspirations of others; it is style which is the deference that action pays to uncertainty; it is above all style through which power defers to reason."
J. Robert Oppenheimer, A Definition of Style
from
W. Walker Gibson, ed., The Limits of Language (N.Y. : Hill & Wang, 1962), 50f
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/883716/J-Robert-Oppenheimer-and-Style
This is a complex sentence which Steve proposed to use in some writing, the discussion somehow centered on the moral authority of Oppenheimer and not so much in parsing the sentence. But the sentence contains 5 elements that are interesting to enumerate as a starting point for a discussion on climbing style and first ascents:
1) “complements affirmation with limitation and with humility”
Affirmation is the act of stating a truth, not the act of proving a truth. Relating this to climbing, one might affirm that a climb is “impossible.” Our choice of climbing style, however, might have it include a recognition of our limitation (“impossible for me”) and/or our own humility regarding the climb.
2) “makes it possible to act effectively, but not absolutely”
A style allows us to actually do the first ascent, but that style might include the consideration that any choice cannot be considered "absolute"
3) “enables us to find harmony between the pursuit of ends essential to us, and the regard for the views, the sensibilities, the aspirations of others”
the style considers what other climbers might do, including those future climbers
4) “the deference that action pays to uncertainty”
Deference is the respectful submission, here it would mean that our actions would honor the uncertainty of what we would find on a first ascent. An example might be starting up a climb and finding a blank section. The style we adopt would inform our decision as to whether or not to proceed, and how.
5) “power defers to reason”
Style helps us decide if what we are capable of (our power) should over ride our principles.
It is a good place to start.
Now the definition of the best first ascent style is something I think we can all agree on:
You start at the ground and climb to the top without resorting to any aid, and making the minimum possible alteration of the route from the state that you found it.
Not able to maintain this style, the first ascent attempt is abandoned in a manner that leaves it as unaltered as possible making it available for future attempts.
This is an ideal, and it pertains to the first ascent, but we would not disagree that any route put up this way represents the best way for the first ascent.
It is a style that helps us decide our actions during a first ascent.
my synopsis of the response is that, basically, since the rules of climbing are arbitrary, there is no possibility of the community of climbers defining a best style.
However, this perceived difficulty arises from factors outside of the actual First Ascent, in particular, a consideration of how other climbers coming after the first ascent will find the climb. Obviously, these are serious considerations, however, they are in tension with the first ascent style in many respects.
The boldness of the first ascent team in running out the climb between anchors, especially on routes requiring bolts for protection, is a consideration that the first ascent team makes without prior knowledge of what the route will be. Given the that the FA team may be confronted with the choice of doing the route in “best style” or using a less than best style to prepare the route for subsequent ascents, e.g. hang on a hook (which would be using aid) to drill a bolt reducing the runout, or gunning for the next stance from which to bolt, is an example of a dilemma that many FA teams face.
On rock that cannot currently be bolted on stance there is no alternative to rap bolting except choosing not to put a route in. It is not at all clear that some future technology would allow a ground up ascent, and it is not at all clear what the impetus is for putting the route in.
For sport routes it is not at all clear why these need to be put in at all. Consider that the sport route is essentially the same sort of route the exists in artificial climbing walls in climbing gyms, the outside variety of these climbs being somewhat longer than a typical gym, but in essence, gym climbing came about by emulating outdoor sports route. The technology exists to make the indoor artificial experience the same as the outdoor one with considerably less commitment involved with the existence of the routes (no presumption need be made about the impossibility of doing the route in “best style” today or in the future).
The environmental impact of reproducing sport routes on artificial walls is much less than the outdoor version, no approach trails, no cleaning cliffs, no issues involved with driving to and from the outdoor location. The routes can be set and reset without drilling offering a variety of climbs. The safety equipment is maintained on schedules. The safe behavior of the climbers is also insured by the staff of the gym.
We all like being outdoors in wonderful settings, is that enough of a justification to commit the cliff, a climbing resource, to a particular style forever (effectively)?
These are all questions which may arise from my lack of a true understanding of “sport climbing” style.
Aid climbs are another genre which come from quite another place in climbing, one that predates the rise of free climbing standards. Aid climbs do go places which it is difficult to see how you would ever free climb the route. But in the span of less than 50 years the massive siege of The Nose on El Capitan, using much aid, became a free climb which could be done in a long day. There are many factors which go into this, including the use of pre-inspection, rehearsal, etc. to figure out how to do the aid climb free, which would not be “best style.” But the fact that the route goes free begs the question: could it have gone free using “best style” only? without the aid route existing.
I think the answer is unquestionably yes. I don’t know how long it would have taken, but we know its possible to do now, and we know the grade the route goes free at, and while an extraordinary accomplishment, it is not at the extreme of free climbing technical difficulty.
Aid climbs are a tradition from the past. Every year many aid climbs have points-of-aid reduced and many climbs now go free with some route variations. It is generally considered ok to continue to use aid on the big wall routes, but ascents of shorter routes are much more likely to be considered “free” routes once they have a first free ascent.
If an aid route cannot go free one might ask, as above for sport routes, why put a route there?
These are important questions because you can put a route anywhere you wish with enough technology. So the concept of a “natural line” ceases to have any operational meaning. The only thing that matters, of course, is the rule we make that defines what constitutes too much technology.
In the end, this use of technology can be set high enough to eliminate any element of adventure (that is, the outcome is never in any question) but low enough to satisfy the concept that the route shouldn’t be too contrived (whatever that means in this context).
To an audience which would frequent a place like Super Topo Forum it would seem odd that anything but a high quality route, safely protected, scrubbed clean, with excellent topos and description would be a route done in best style. The only uncertainty is whether or not the climbers have the physical ability to climb it. That’s what SuperTopo is all about.
And perhaps that is the future of climbing.
That is not what climbing was, nor need be.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!