Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 110 of total 110 in this topic |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Dec 1, 2006 - 04:20pm PT
|
Upfront let me say I have no stake in this as I'm not a sport climber and have never put up an FA with a protection bolt on it. But the discussion in the 'Ground Up' thread has repeatedly raised the spectre of "ego-driven" runouts on rap bolted sport routes used as the pretext for lableling all such routes as 'botched' FAs. This opens a host of legitimate issues for discussion relative to perceived roles, obligations, responsibilities, and standards which burden (or not) a person establishing a sport route.
What if the person putting up a rap-bolted sport route is one of the well-rounded climbers who does it all that everyone loves to gush about? You know - bouldering, sport, trad, alpine, ice - all of it. But what then if due to their experiences in highball bouldering, hard trad, difficult alpine, and runout ice they just end up in a state where managing risk is a central to their experience and they like a little spice when they climb regardless of what kind of climbing they're doing. What does a person so demonically afflicted do when they decide to establish a sport route? I mean they want the route to reflect a taste of their experience and what they want out of a climb so build a little spice into the route - i.e. they deliberately establish serious or deadly runouts by design. What then are we to make of such a route? Botched? An affront to the 'community'? Abusive development? Is it 'ego-driven' or are they simply playing a different game than most of their fellow sport climbers?
Folks in skateboarding world are now building [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/sports/othersports/01ramp.html?ei=5090&en=f422ed5447b037eb&ex=1320037200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all" target="new"]'Mega Ramps'[/url] where death and disfigurement are a potential outcome of a ride. Does that make it a 'botched' ramp? Well, why should we be so quick to label every runout sport route as a 'botched', 'ego-driven' abomination and afront to the 'community'? Is pristine rock now so rare a commodity that we can't afford to accomodate such an exercise in personal expression? If the answer is yes, then I think you are unavoidably acknowledging a whole bunch of thorny issues best described as a commodity supply and demand problem within a now burgeoning commercial consumer products industry. I can't be the only inquiring mind that wants to know why there shouldn't be R and X-rated sport climbs. Or by definition is establishing a sport route supposed to be an exercise in the lowest-common-denominator risk management. Personally, I think saying there shouldn't be such routes smacks of an an entirely peculiar mix of entitlement and socialism, but this is clearly a prominent development issue in the world of community-based sport climbing.
|
|
murcy
climber
|
|
Entitlement and socialism. I'd add beastiality and satanism. Racism as well.
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand, Man.....
|
|
I'm not really sure what you said, but since this is the internet, I'll spray:
Problem with rap bolted runouts is they are not a level playing field. The rapper has knowledge of the route either by TRing it first, or seeing/touching the holds while rapping in the bolts. They guy who goes next is at a disadvantage in that he does not know what is up there and the results of a mistake are pricey. Following in others footsteps is a big part of doing climbs..... since there are no footsteps to follow in the raprunoutsport deal, it is poor style. That is why rap bolted runouts are ghey and should be chopped or a fluff boy should go in there and make them safe. Yep I said it... ADD BOLTS.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 1, 2006 - 04:36pm PT
|
Ok, so it's back to the ownership issue. So you're claiming public 'ownership' by definition confers an obligation and demand for routes to be configured with lowest-common-denominator risk-management profile. Interest perspective...
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
Rap bolting routes with deliberate scary runouts is just stupid. Ground-up it or toprope it.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 1, 2006 - 04:45pm PT
|
Russ, if I hear you correctly I believe you're saying no one should have to bail off a sport route because, on arriving at some arbitrary bolt, they either can't see the next one or see it at some considerable distance. On the previewing issue, what would prevent someone that wants to climb it from simply TRing or rapping and previewing it just like the person that established it? Is that such a problem. And, again (playing devil's advocate myself), are you saying we can't afford such routes? Couldn't all the guides and beta simply say this is "one of those" routes? Sounds like style nazis to me.
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
boulder county
|
|
Wait a sec', I'm not done reading the first thread and already you guys have come out with a sequel.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 1, 2006 - 04:49pm PT
|
Weschrist,
Au contraire, if there is another definition for the intent behind your phrase of "[retrobolt] X to R or PG" than "lowest-common-denominator" than I can't imagine what it might be.
|
|
G_Gnome
Boulder climber
Sick Midget Land
|
|
And wes, when the public decides that your outlook is skewed also, how are you going to feel when they put a bolt every 4 feet? There never is going to be a 'public' decision on these things. If there is then the government has gotten involved and your and my parents are gonna be voting on this sh#t so that their little grandkids can't get hurt while climbing. And "CAN'T" get hurt would be the ultimate resolution and you know it. Your argument is worthless because it is based on a reality that isn't ever gonna be real.
|
|
Melvin Mills
Trad climber
Albuquerque NM
|
|
Hypothetically, if the FA person climbing GU gets in a f*#ked up spot, wishes to God he had put in a bolt at that last stance 10' down, but is now looking at a 60'er, pushes through, swears he will never have sex with farm animals again as long as he comes out of this alive, finishes the route, and never returns...
Wes, the person you are talking about in the above situation just put up a botched route if they did feel another bolt should go in but they were just to lazy to come back and do it. At the least they should tell the rest of the people who would go repeat the route that it needs another bolt in a certain spot and repeat ascensionists should feel free to add one. Then there is some redemption for that poor (lazy) schmuck.
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Davis, CA
|
|
Not real? Retrobolting happens from time to time.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 1, 2006 - 04:57pm PT
|
Greg, so every pitch of an untopropeable 22 pitch alpine sport route should be completely safe as well? That sounds a bit intolerant and otherwise at least a minor tryanny of community property.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 1, 2006 - 05:00pm PT
|
So several of you are telling me that no one should ever face the prospect of arriving at a bolt and finding the next one out or reach of their comfort zone? Or is it someone else's comfort zone? Or is there an simply an informal community-defined comfort zone? Exactly how many feet is that or is it more of a know-it-when-I-see-it sort of deal? Is the deal really that no one can or should have to bail off a sport route (or no one should ever be over their head on one)?
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Davis, CA
|
|
so you're using a unique bolted alpine climb and calling it intolerant?
more of the same from healy...
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand, Man.....
|
|
Russ, if I hear you correctly I believe you're saying no one should have to bail off a sport route because on arriving at some arbitrary bolt they either can't see the next one or see it at some considerable distance.
True, with all the standard exceptions that I'm sure we could both dig up.... guy only has one eye, lasik went bad, too scared at any height above a bolt. Sport climbing by definition is all about the moves and not the consequences. If there are consequences, then it is not really sport in my book.
On the previewing issue, what would prevent someone that wants to climb it from simply TRing or rapping and previewing it just like the person that established it?
Nothing. But, for the large majority of routes, people just walk up to the base and climb them. The hidden history is rarely available to the man in the field walking around with his rack and rope looking at a name and grade in the guidebook. If some dude want's to headpoint the pile, more power to them.
Is that such a problem.
Not if you have the info about how the route was done. If I looked in a guidebook and saw that a route was put up on rap, has 5.10 moves 90ft out, and is rated 5.10a, then I would have a decision to make. But if I am a wobbly 5.10- minus leader with bad eyesite and see a string of bolts on what looks like a sport climb in my target lead area, there will be trouble when I hit that runout. I think that is an unreasonable demand to put on a punter.
And, again (playing devil's advocate myself), are you saying we can't afford such routes? Couldn't all the guides and beta simply say this is "one of those" routes? Sounds like style nazis to me.
We can't afford them because now a days there are too many climbers and not enough rock. The amount of routes that are put in ground up with the requsite fear factor built in to keep the masses off is miniscule compared to the potential of top down Bosch clowns that could eat up all the moderate rock in short order. I agree there should be routes for all abilities, and the middle grades is where most of these are found. A good climber, doing ground up stuff, has little interest in making a 5.8 horror show. But a top down bolting team could make short work of a moderate grade crag and create nothing that anyone would want to do, or could do safely. Any yes, style nazis are alive and well.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 1, 2006 - 05:07pm PT
|
And in a segue to the bouldering world, at what height should a higbhall boulder problem get a bolt and be considered a route rather than a problem? Should boulderers be able to define that distinction and keep bolts off their problems?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 1, 2006 - 05:08pm PT
|
Caught, you're assuming it will remain unique - that's a bold assertion given the trends in climbing today...
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
You're really stretching healyje.
I said "Rap bolting routes with deliberate scary runouts is just stupid."
If a rap-bolted 22 pitch sport route (yikes! they have those? Don't they have anything better to do with their time?) has a 4th class pitch with no bolts, or big runouts on 5.8 when the route is 5.11, then it's not a "deliberate scary runout" - I used "scary" to mean runout at hard for the grade or crux climbing or with a bad fall, etc.
I don't see much point in this whole line of discussion - rap bolted routes are generally not an issue.
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Davis, CA
|
|
I'm not saying it will remain unique, but given that it took over two years to put it up, and there hasn't been one since, I just don't see a mass proliferation of them being a problem.
|
|
Melvin Mills
Trad climber
Albuquerque NM
|
|
Has anybody on this thread climbed at Mill Creek where runout bolted sport routes are the norm? Evidently, some talented climbers developed the routes first in a style they liked and many other subsequent climbers who go there lose their cookies because the routes can be runout (particularly at the top where a ground fall is less possible). With some exceptions for poorly placed bolts (which can occur on closely bolted routes), I am okay with having to run it out on these climbs. That said, I also have to be okay with backing off some climbs (and have several times at the area).
Are these routes bad or good or just a local style of putting up routes?
PS, Healyje, based on your first post you really have misunderstood what I would define as a botched route.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
I have a simple ethic relating to all of this. One should never intentionally put up an X rated route when one could bolt it to avoid the X. Ambiguities: the route might not allow anything but X due to terrain considerations; you find yourself committed with no retreat possible and must push on through. This has happened to me a couple of times, and I gave permission for anyone coming later to "fix" it.
Let me be very clear: the climber with clear intent to put up an X when that need not be necessary is an ego driven juvenile and owns nothing vis a vis that route. If someone comes along and corrects the flaw--X, good for them.
|
|
G_Gnome
Boulder climber
Sick Midget Land
|
|
Boy wes, you really misinterpreted what I said. I would never say that the community does not make decisions about chopping retro-bolts (hell, I have done that - I have chopped a whole route), what I said was that you were never going to get a public agreement on how close/far bolts should be from each other and that if you did you wouldn't be happy with the result.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 1, 2006 - 05:50pm PT
|
So it's basically sounding like the 'community' has a zero-tolerance policy around runouts on sport routes. That someone wishing to put up the sport equivalent of a 'Mega Ramp' on public property should not bother and join Reardon's army of One.
And, Greg, surely you're not claiming you don't know about Ignorant Bliss? It is unlikely to remain solitary for long. And are there no longer multipitch routes with runouts in Potrero?
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Davis, CA
|
|
well, if it has a runout on it, I wouldn't even call it a sport route. more of a bolted trad climb. Which if you did top down is no longer 'traditional.' which makes it contrived and silly.
yes.
very silly.
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
Are you listening at all healyje? Go re-read what Russ said.
The community has tons of respect for runout face routes that were put in GROUND UP.
I don't think many have respect for those who toprope, figure out the moves, then create artificial runouts for the lead. Natural runouts (for instance easy sections on hard routes) are not the issue. And like I said, nearly every route in question on this sort of issue was done ground-up.
|
|
ground_up
Trad climber
portland, or.
|
|
Russ is making the most sense ...imho
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 1, 2006 - 06:41pm PT
|
Greg,
I am listening and I did hear what Russ said. I'm not trying to make a run at 400 here but rather just try to hone down some of this stuff in my mind. For me the issue is one of the role of risk and risk management skills in climbing in general. As a devout sport luddite it interesting to hear it fairly conclusively and authoritatively stated that for all practical purposes that sport climbing by definition is meant to be synonymous with 'safe-climbing'. That from the posts here it is also clear if someone wants to build the sport equivalent of a single or multi-pitch 'Mega Ramp' then that will be viewed derisively by the community and likely retrobolted to eliminate runouts if it is in an easily accessible location.
For me that 'safe-climbing' mantra and development is what is responsible for the majority of the growth in the number of people who identify themselves as climbers. Again, I know my views stretch out to the extreme here, but Russ' eplanation that 'we can't afford them because now a days there are too many climbers and not enough rock' is clearly a symptom of that growth. I simply don't see that growth as a positive thing at all given the outcome Russ points out and it will be interesting over the next twenty years to see how the sport develops, how the population stats evolve, and what the trends in access and land management will look like as this all rolls forward. I find it interesting that Laurel Knob is only being debuted with stringent restrictions given it looks to for all practical purposes has the potential to be a sport climbers wet dream. All interesting...
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
The vast majority of my routes are well protected. Indeed some have drawn criticism for being over-protected.
But then there are also routes like Iron Messiah which on its first (non-crux) pitch is a tad sporty (25m, 5 drilled angles).
Not too many complaints.
But just last night I was talking about its final pitch.
On the FA I just ran it out 25m on easy face and then labeled the pitch 5.4X on the topo.
Subsequently the X was often misinterpreted and before using a harder but far better protected alternative they scan the slab and then later come moaning to me about "not seeing the bolt".
Pussies.
I could go on about numerous other routes. Like in Snow Canyon on the ground up 10 pitch route where after several runouts I later returned, added a bolt to one and left another spicy.
Or the appropriately named Full Metal Jockstrap where the bolts protect the hardest moves but on one pitch the gaps between increase after about a half dozen.
I was accused of making a trap, but only a fool assumes that all routes are safe and knowledge beforehand has no value.
My point is that, while consistent implementation of forced runouts is irresponsible, to say that we should have none at all is even worse.
This is climbing you pussilanimus poseurs. If you can't tolerate any risk at all take up bowling. You can get cool shirts.
|
|
pc
climber
East of Seattle
|
|
Healyje wrote "...That from the posts here it is also clear if someone wants to build the sport equivalent of a single or multi-pitch 'Mega Ramp' then that will be viewed derisively by the community and likely retrobolted to eliminate runouts if it is in an easily accessible location."
My take is "yes" if it's on public land, "no" if it's on one's own land like the Mega Ramp described in the original article.
and assuming it's a rap job.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
heal is just working a thought experiment. no big.
it is some sickly middle ground Heal. yes, socialist. Yes, risk management at the individual level.
Your analogy to the Mega Ramp is a good one. And yes, that could be a different game to play by, but Russ is right, the next guy with or without a guidebook doesn't have the same advantage as someone that has worked the route or previewed it. But if that is the game that is created, there is no absolute metaphysical realm to appeal to to make it a valid way of doing things.
I think the appeal to tradition in this sense is the best one and the right-headed way to approach whether that game is a good one to play. Maybe in the future that will change, but not likely.
Personally, I'd be willing to chop (and camo the holes) a route that went in top down that had deliberately dangerous (high risk of ledge or ground) run outs.
That still leaves a lot of middle ground that you may not get straight in your mind as the rules to applicability shift based on what is valued at a inter or even intra personal level.
try making a matrix and list the values on one side with arguments against on the other side.
post what you come up with.
good thread actually, thx mang.
|
|
caughtinside
Social climber
Davis, CA
|
|
http://carolinaclimbers.org/cpg135/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=4
I don't think I'd call laurel knob a sport climber's wet dream. A cool hunk of rock for sure, but most of it looks sub vertical, slabby. Did you call it that because it looks crack free?
Locker style EDIT: here's the new link, thanks.
Russ style EDIT: nice to meet you too russ. yeah, i should have come up with a cleverer nickname. What can I say, Lambone was already taken.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Wuss christ,
I don't lack the ability to read your posts.
Merely the interest.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 1, 2006 - 07:59pm PT
|
Caught - cool shot, looks like about five crags. What's the deal with the other 3 or 4 I wonder...
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Paris Girl in "Eldo" comes to my mind. This was a early "sport route" and should be updated (rebolted in my opinion.
|
|
jack herer
climber
veneta, or
|
|
Piton Ron-
You mention Snow Canyon, is this located near Santa Clara? I was working on the bullcomplex fire down there and our camp was at a Snow Canyon middle school, there where some impressive looking walls on the road out to gunlock, is this what your talking about?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Jack,
it is indeed.
An interesting area. Cracks AND face.
|
|
N0_ONE
Social climber
Utah
|
|
Yawn!
|
|
jack herer
climber
veneta, or
|
|
Ron-
Great I will have to check that out next time I'm in the area. I stared at it every day for 2 weeks! Is it in any guide books? Any good aid lines?
Thanks!
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Snow Canyon can be fun but No_One obviously feels that the rocks are better where he goes to visit his wives.
But this thread was supposed to be about spicy runouts not spicy runs.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
There may be a problem with definitions here. Just about any fall can result in injury or a freakish fatality. When I use the X mark, I've evaluated the danger of injury or death as extreme, severe injury absolutely. Further, I don't define a sportclimb as a climb protected only by bolts as some of you seem to do. I understand this may be ambiguous. Serpentine (Suicide ) might be sport for some, not others. Duck Soup/Revelations, not sport. I think of sport climbing as outdoor gym. This isn't an ideal parallel but reasonable close. Loose Lady is sport for some, not for others; it's on the margin; yank one bolt, and it sure isn't sport. So being a solely bolted route does not a sportclimb make; it's the distance between the bolts.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
What's REALLY funny is that you don't see your own contradiction. lol
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
In the late 1980's I put up one of the early routes at Rumney, Flesh for Lulu. I'd done plenty of 5.12's before, but in New Hampshire at that time almost all the harder routes climbed typical trad features such as thin cracks or corners. Flesh was probably one of the first long, overhanging wall climbs that I ever did, and for me at the time it was right at my upper limit for that sort of climbing. I knew the route would need some bolts, but in those days sport climbing didnt really exist ( at least not in name anyway) and I only wanted to use the absolute minimum that I thought I could get away with. So I rapped in and placed two. I didn't top rope the route before leading it and the whole venture was bloody terrifying. I only had the balls to try the route once or twice each day but eventually on day four I pulled over the top with a big sigh of relief. Sometime later Ken Nichols chopped all of the bolts at Rumney, and shortly after, the locals fitted the route with 9 bolts making it a full fledged sport route.
At the time they asked me for permission to retrobolt the route. I said no, arguing that if you wanted to do the route in perfect safety it was very easy to set up a top rope (they bolted it anyway). Greg and Russ seem to be saying that because the route was rap bolted that that means that it can't be a scary route as well, the reasoning being that as a first ascentionist you have a big advantage over subsequent ascents. But if the first asent involved a rappel inspection then whats stopping any other climber from doing the same?, or even top roping it if they want to hedge their bets a little. And if some stud comes along, he can go for the onsight. I don't see why thats a problem. There are a lot of different ways to test your nerve while rock climbing, onsighting is just one. Twenty years and thousands of sport climbs later I still think New Hampshire climbers lost out when Flesh for Lulu was retrobolted.
Jerry
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
"Let me be very clear: the climber with clear intent to put up an X when that need not be necessary is an ego driven juvenile and owns nothing vis a vis that route. If someone comes along and corrects the flaw--X, good for them."
This is a pretty good example of an attitude than came into play along with sport climbing. Before that, risk and adventure was an accepted part of climbing, and if you lacked the tools to tic a given runout route, you'd never of felt entitled to "correct the flaw" in order to bring the route to within acceptable personal levels of committment. That would have been seen as juvinile, where the creators of first ascents were obliged to take your needs into account. Nowadays, putting up a route has taken on the apsect of community service--a different mindset and value system to be sure.
JL
|
|
G_Gnome
Boulder climber
Sick Midget Land
|
|
Sorry wes, we are getting caught in the time warp here. You edited you post after I read it. I agree with what you changed it to.
On the other hand, while the world has changed, why can't we aim to control the change a little bit?
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
let's start by getting rid of all the sport climbers
may have my quotes mixed up here.
maybe it's a formula, not a quote...lemme see how did that go? A2 + R2 = Balls squared
Solve for F, where F = constant Fun
|
|
G_Gnome
Boulder climber
Sick Midget Land
|
|
Can't do that Munge. Too many of us cross dress these days.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
"And before that it was 10 hour days in the field behind a plow... and uphill to school in the snow with no shoes... both ways... and the rock was shared by the very few who could get out and enjoy it... it ain't the same world, it never will be."
Hold your horses there, partner. Your analogy is off because when my grandpappy quit having to hump into school through a snowdrift, and could take a bus instead, the only thing he lost was needless suffering. Whereas in transitioning from run out to sport bolted you loose the chance to access both courage and sincerity, which some may consider "needless," while other do not. For some, having something real at stake gave the adventure added meaning and significance. You didn't pose out there on the sharp end when the last bolt was 30 feet below. You had only your own basic stuff, and I'm afraid that some have lost the sense of even knowing that such an encounter with yourself is worth having. It was never danger for dangers sake. That's ludicrous.
JL
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
The bottom line reality is that local or prevailing community opinions dictate what stays or what goes in most areas. If it changes, the area changes. Community tends to, perhaps unconsciously, consider all the factors: past history and tradition, the players and their history, and the mood in general. For better or worse, community plays favorites too.
That said, it's good to debate these topics because it makes people think and of course, communication can reduce the last resort of bolt wars in an area, which is an unfortunatel thing for climbers and can threaten access if word gets out.
peace
Karl
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
boulder county
|
|
"Spicy [rumouts] by design" happen everyday!
|
|
crankenstein
Trad climber
Louisville, CO
|
|
I can only hope that the approaches to these kinds of "problems" in the future will be as diverse as the multitude of styles of placing permanent protection and putting up new routes. It seems that, for the most part the spacing of bolts has been determined largely by the FA party. I think that FA's should be respected, but in the case of a clearly-by-public-consensus "botched" route, then the public should be able to coerce the 1st ascentionist(s) to correct the mistake.
I can think of a couple of extremes that demonstrate the experience of runouts or lack of; one is the route created with a mandatory stick clip to get you top roped through the crux and the other being the climber who skips clips because he know that that bolt or those bolts weren't on the first ascent so I want to experience it as the FA did.
|
|
Euroford
Trad climber
chicago
|
|
i'll admit to having not read this entire thread, but i've been drinking so i'll spout off anyways. i mean, this is the interweb right? what else do you expect?
i'm not much of a free climber, mostly becouse i'm just not much up for uber steep routes. i really dig it, but ya know, looking at photos of the Gunks that place just sounds like no fun to me.
but where i do excell in the land of the free, is slab climbing. the land of the runout bolted climbs. i just dig that stuff, all technique and risk, without the nasty pump that just isn't my thing. and even though bolt protected, its oh so very trad, and oh so very ground up, which is where my ethic lies.
the polar opposite of my climbing love is sport climbing. after a visit to so-ill i now have a grand total of 2 leads and 2 topropes of sport climbs under my belt.
i guess it has its place, walking around jackson falls i could for the first time actually understand where sport climbers are comming from. some places, and some rocks are just suited towards it. the persuit of gymnastic difficulty without the factor of risk.
if somebody was to contrive the addition of risk to those climbs, it would just seam kind of ridiculous really.
so, as i'm sure your all patiantly waiting for me to get to the point, so here it is:
rap bolting runout sport routes = silly
runout bolts placed on lead = way coolness
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
and by 'coerce' we mean persuade with reason and example.
or small pincers on nipples.
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
What Largo said! Yes, it seems like there is a segment of the climbing population that views putting up first ascents as a community service. That explains a lot of the "make it safe" or lowest common denominator comments on this and related threads.
Bruce
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
boulder county
|
|
Climb more and sky walk less!
Less sky more and walk into the future and more climbing into the future.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
I think that a lot of the balking about the old run out routes comes from a selfidsh sense of entitlement that basically expects every route to conform to their (the balkers) terms, and if those terms were not met (risk proof pro), they, and all future generations have a right and moral responsibility to correct the "flaw." This is part of an overall shift to try and reduce all climbing to a merely physical endeavor, which to some of us seems like a pitiful dummying-down of he adventure. By no means is this ethic prosecuted across the board--note high water soloing and many other bold things coming down in today's climbing scene. But in some camps there's a push to standardize every route out there to be "safe," as though everything less is a crime against humanity and common sense. That seems totally amazing to me, especially considering that some of these routes mentioned are better than 30 years old. I first went to the Valley in '71 and if I would have felt obliged to start retrobolting routes that were established in the late 1930s, I would have fell totally ashamed.
JL
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Pain makes climber think
Thought makes climber wise
Time makes climber forget pain
Forgetfullness makes climber climb more painful routes
Repeat as needed.
Seems like Largo's post belongs in one of the related threads since this one is about intended runouts on rap routes.
and in that case, the reality is that the community decides what stands
Peace
Karl
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Karl,
I didn't know you were a climbing "communist"!
We seem to have forgotten that climbing is an art form. Most particularly in the FA process.
Perhaps its the embarrasment of riches I have in terms of boundless rock, but it always seems to me that the critics ought to just go out and put up their OWN routes to show how they think it should be done instead of obsessing over someone else's work.
I'm so tired of the all to common attempts to suppress individuality and "homogenize" cultures in our society in general. It seems a shame for the climbing community to emulate it in defiance of a long standing celebration of the first ascent principle.
Would we go to an art gallery and make "corrections" in the work of others?
I agree with John when he says, "as though everything less is a crime against humanity and common sense".
I suppose thats why the whiners can't see it as monday morning quarterbacking when they're out to save mankind.
An aside to Wuss Christ,
I guess some of us don't have a reason to go out on a friday night.
If you can't see a contradiction in "no judgement though,... everyone makes mistakes" then you may be impossible to reason with, especially if you think crying out "drilled pockets" is the universal trump card. But you seem to have a hard-on for me and Jeff. He'll be here tomorrow evening, and I'm in the book. Why don't you call and see if we can work it out instead of this endless drivel?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Ron wrote
"Karl,
I didn't know you were a climbing "communist"!
We seem to have forgotten that climbing is an art form. Most particularly in the FA process.
Perhaps its the embarrasment of riches I have in terms of boundless rock, but it always seems to me that the critics ought to just go out and put up their OWN routes to show how they think it should be done instead of obsessing over someone else's work.
I'm so tired of the all to common attempts to suppress individuality and "homogenize" cultures in our society in general. It seems a shame for the climbing community to emulate it in defiance of a long standing celebration of the first ascent principle. "
I'm pretty tolerant myself. I'm just saying what reality is, not what I think it should be. The community has always had something to say about if an FA is an outrage or not. Sometimes, looking back, a later community doesn't agree with earlier community.
That's why Robbins chopped the Dawn Wall and why it was later reestablished.
If somebody took a beautiful, clean overhanging blank section of Zion Sandstone and just put a bolt ladder straight up the thing so they could hang out in an awesome place with no risk or actual climbing, would you guys be cool with it or not? I'm not saying one way or another but it sounds like they did the FA and in the name of diversity you'd honor it.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Wrong person to ask Karl.
An even older climbing partner and I have discussed doing just that.
If another party did, and they did a good job with solid work it wouldn't bother me a bit.
In fact, if overhanging it would be far more resistant to the drag buffing that many of the current Zion classics exhibit, a problem which could very well soon threaten ALL Zion climbing.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
And when did our community even agree with itself?!
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Again Ron.
I'm just describing what I see around me, not my personal opinion about how it should be.
And just like our regular community, it's the ones who feel most radically about things that make the most noise and take action.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
"No trump card, just another illustration of how pathetic it gets when one person thinks they own the route."
Perhaps it gets most pathetic when someone comes along after the first ascent and, thinking he owns the route, refashions it after his particular tastes and sack quotient. If there is no shame at all in reference to this issue, then anyone can come along and do as they please on any route, anywhere, rendering a route meaningless insofar as the character is ever changing.
It's called spotsmanship, and in virtually any other sport if you can't jump the bar or hit the pitch or sink the shot, who goes altering the venue so it better fits their skillset? That's called cheating in virtually every sportsman's book--plain and simple.
JL
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Don't kid yourself ......
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Apage satanas!
Wes, Hedge: Your ideas are superficially attractive, but it'd be a slippery slope.
There's always been tension in climbing between the various values. You may just be playing devil's advocate, but since its inception climbing has been about adventure and challenge, including risk, at least perceived and usually real. (Even gyms and "sport" climbs see a fair number of injuries, mostly DIA.)
Your alternate values seem to be safety and convenience. With such values, more and more places in the U.S. would soon be like much of Europe - bolted to the hilt, to maximize traffic and minimize commitment. Including many places where there's perfectly good natural protection. The race for homogeneity.
There are already a fair number of cliffs where safety and convenience have led to overbolting - many "sport" climbing crags. The cracks at such cliffs don't have much of a chance. We're fortunate to have enough rock (so far) to allow you to play your game by your rules, and (hopefully) for you to allow me to play by my rules. I'm inconvenienced because Just Do It doesn't provide much in the way of hand jams; you're inconvenienced because the Bachar-Yerian has relatively few protection bolts. Inconvenience isn't a very convincing indictment.
We have some problems with convenience bolting in Squamish, and they're starting to be discussed - suddenly, people have become aware that we have a limited, and precious, resource. We can't all do what we'd like, where and when we'd like.
You've done well to bring this up here, given a (foreseeable) less than sympathetic reception. We're all part of a community, in the inclusive sense of the word, and have to do our best to work these things out ourselves. That means involving all parts of our community.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The retro bolters are the robots who can't see the magicians.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
one pass away from the big ditch
|
|
what if all FA routing was done anonymously?
what if we all guidebooks were outlawed?
what if all topos were verbal descriptions?
(sorry will start a new thread for these)
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
It would probably be a good idea to note who is doing most of the retrobolting and why.
First is replacing fixed pin and tree anchors with bolts. That's complete in many areas, and still resisted in others.
In Yosemite, the vast majority of retrobolting is by 5.13 to 5.15 climbers freeing aid clmibs. Again, will somebody address the question of bolts on the changing corners pitch on the Nose? Yes it would be more dangerous to use placed pro on that pitch but WAY less dangerous than climbing some of these run-out faces that some are thinking about.
I know, because I had an RP pull on me on the changing corners and my belayer had, for a dumb reason (years ago), a ton of slack in the system and I went like 30 feet before I stopped. Clean fall. No other pro pulled.
Where's all the condemnation for retrobolting the most famous, proudest route in Yosemite? Strikes me of elitism that the best climbers can retrobolt the proudest stone that gets climbed every day but it's bloody murder pussyhood if some 5.9 climber wants 3-4 bolts per pitch where there is 1 bolt or none on some classic face that hasn't had a dozen ascents.
What's good for either should be good for both, either way.
The retro-bolting of changing corners started with just two bolts within easy reach of the crack. Now there is a variation with more bolts. So there is the question about how far you have to get from the original route before it's OK to bolt a variation. If it's ok to multibolt a variation 7 feet left of the crack on Changing Corners is it ok to put a bolted route 7 feet left of Apparition on Daff Dome?
It should be noted that some parties are saving time by bringing a cheater stick to avoid one of the harder aid sections on the Nose (The thin part of Changing Corners) by cheater stick clipping the retrobolts.
Just asking questions and keepin us honest. Never bolted within 100 feet of another route myself.
I hear a lot of talk about abstinence only but that's not the reality I see. What is it reality and why?
Peace
karl
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
"The longer you old school guys go on presenting an argument that ignores logic, common sense, and physical reality, the more ridiculous your argument becomes. If you want to run it out or die if you fall, no amount of retrobolting prevents you from doing that. Where do you get this idea that you absolutely must clip in to any and all fixed gear?"
This, as I said earlier, is a totally new mindset. Before, the notion was that a route was not just a series of moves, but an overall experience that required of the climber a certain skillset. Especially on bolted climbs, that overall experience was authored by the first ascentionists, and anyone who came along afterwards had the choice of either going after that experience, or not. Your take on all of this, Joe, is that the experience authored by the first ascentionists is of no importance and is, basically, meaningless unless it fits your criteria. You also take it upon yourself to assert ownership over every route that doesn't meet your criteria, and to assert your "right" to reconform the route to your specs because it is "logical" to do so.
Now this seems terribly selfish to me, as well as vastly dummying down the challenge of a climbing experience--reducing the climb to a series of moves rather than an adventure. It seems particularly crazy when you consider that these run out climbs are by far the minority -- there are a hundred sport bolted route for every run out face route. Why not just leave the old run out climbs alone, rather than stitching them up with bolts because it's "logical" to do so.
Dood, most of these climbs are like 30 plus years old. If you don't want to climb them, don't. But you can't go "improving" the work of others simply because it's logical to do so. Imagine doing that in any other sport or enterprise? You'd be railroaded out of town in a hurry.
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 3, 2006 - 12:52pm PT
|
Like I said, it's a good thing you can't bolt waves, because after this crowd figured out that, even after factoring in the advantages of new boards (better rubber) and towing in, they could still get killed at a Mavericks or ground into the coral at any number of breaks, every big wave in the world would be grid bolted. Weak sauce. Like I said, it isn't climbing so much as a just another risk-free, suburban, entertainment option.
The problem is that gymspawn who have never placed a piece gear are now 70-80% of the population of folks who identify themselves as a 'climber'. The infrastructure necessary for them to be climbers at all is a significant burden on the rock, but sort of like the repugnicans successfully taking over the government, they're here to stay and now represent a 'tyranny of democracy'. I expect similar results from their 'governance'. I will say they are unabashed in the support of the logic of stripping climbing of those things that made many if not most of us old folks interested in it in the first place. And to be honest, being assured of not running into these sorts of folks was one of the most attractive aspects of why I took up climbing back in the day. I guess in the end I'm just not a 'uniter' at heart...
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Can someone define a "sport route" and then define a "trad route".
There is a huge difference in how they are established and what the FA party is trying to accomplished.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
I still think it would be a good idea to be more specific and less idealistic when discussing these ideas. I don't get the impression the different posters are talking about the same things. We're not on the topic of this thread anymore (rap bolted, rehearsed climbs) and the history and ethic of each area has something to do with it, along with the rep and popularity/obscurity of the route.
Because reality is that, in the areas I've climbed, the First Ascent has only been respected if it falls within Community Standards. Community Standards change and the facts on the ground begin to change. Like it or not, even Largo's generation offended the previous generation and so on.
Examples:
Harding puts up Dawn Wall, Robbins chops it, many years later it's put back up and is still there
Kauk rap bolts sport climb, Bachar chops it and stress in the community erupts. I think that route is back on the stone as well.
It's true that most dangerous FAs like Solitary Commitment have been respected but the community standard respected that, but again, generations in the future may respect that and keep it and they may not. Just like what our generation does about sex would be unthinkable 100 years ago.
Chalk, Hangdogging, Cams, topos, all considered weak sauce at some point.
I wonder what the guys like Robbins would have thought about stuff like Eric Kohl's aid routes (back in the day, not now after things have changed) Plenty Bold, but sometimes lots of holes and not necessarily obvious lines of weakness.
Peace
Karl
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Elitism
Yes, there must be dictator, and there must be sheep.
Hehehe .......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
To begin with, why do we really put any kind of protection in place?
What is our real goal ultimately?
To have fun?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Classic Kevin! and your points are all valid points of view.
Now some aid climbers might disagree with you. They did raise a stink about a couple added bolts on Wet Denim Daydream that made the pitch safer if an aid climber clipped them.
and for the 99.9% of climbers who aid the changing corners, it's easier and safer for them to clip the retro-bolts as well.
It doesn't turn out that my satisfaction in aid climbing depends on it staying dangerous but for many that seems to be the case. Arguing that getting the route free is worth it, if only for a few, even though it deprives the rest, the many, of the natural conditions is a point of view. But it seems to be a point of view that again favors the elite. After all, if folks had the option of climbing those 5.9 face climbs while staring down 40-70 foots falls rather than death falls, it would benefit the many, and might actually increase the number of people doing scary face climbing, and the elite could still solo it.
But then there's that slipperly slope eh?
and that slope exists in aid climbing as well since I have heard criticism of the close bolting done in freeing the dihedral wall. By our notorious friend Todd if I remember correctly.
There's also a retro-bolt on the very moderate free-climbing pitch of Texas Flake on the Nose. I just think folks are too lazy to chop it and maybe who knows why it's still there. (I might suspect how it got there though, I tried to link up that pitch with the previous one and the rope was almost out by that bolt. I hadn't placed any pro at all on the pitch and then I was almost out of rope. I had to do some ridiculous rope trick-sling debacle to finish the lead.)
Just tossing some specific examples out there so we can get a perspective on how individuals and the community come to view route alterations.
We're human and don't tend to be consistent. That's a given. One of the most outspoken trad guys around actually added a bolt to one of the 50 classics so it would be easier to guide. That bolt has since been chopped.
Wes, I think we should just debate the ideas and look at each other's perspective without involving personalities. Many of these threads have a very good exchange of ideas without needing to be spurred on by hyperbole that just makes people defensive.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Kevin wrote:
"My point was that the difficulty/challenge of the climbing on the Nose route overall was not significantly changed or "dumbed down" by adding bots to protect freeclimbing, as far as I know. I'm not strictly against using bolts even if there's natural pro if the natural pro poorly protects what is essentially a sport pitch."
Well it certainly dumbs down the challenge of freeclimbing the Changing Corners Pitch on the Nose and it makes it safer for Aid Climbing too which is a major factor in aid climbing.
The changing corners pitch is not essentially a sport pitch and the Nose is not a sport route. There were no pro nor aid bolts on that pitch when Harding climbed it. That pitch could be climbed on all natural pro by a top climber more safely than a 5.9 Tuolumne X rated route could be climbed by an average 5.10 climber.
So why do the elite tell us to sack up, and tell us don't change the natural protection offered, and then fail to set that standard of boldness and respect for the established route that they preach? And the rest of us look up and say, wow, must be hard to climb 5.14. Better not say anything.
Some do. The Huber have shown the bold way is possible on El Cap. Recent 5.13 ascents on the Falls Wall and the Ground up Free First ascent over by the Waterfall Route are examples.
Kevin wrote in another post
" Enabling the route to go free trumps the aesthetic compromise of added bolts for most, because it helps to raise freeclimbing standards. "
I wonder if you really mean to say this because what I'm reading is that adding bolts is worth it to raise freeclimbing standards. That sounds like sport climber talk to me.
And I'm not saying your wrong, because my brother, I don't know if there is a right answer. It may be all about how we get our own answers for ourselves and how we take those answers to the stone that shows our colors.
I'm in nobody's camp here cause I'm too old and weak to crank hard but I'm still skilled enough to do the runouts on the easier stuff. I have just found it's an exciting excercise of courage in the mind to question our assumptions, root out, or at least admit, our hypocrisy, and let go of dogma.
peace
karl
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
The boldness factor in climbing has always been one of the attractions to me. With a couple of exceptions, I've never climbed anything beyond the 5.11 - 5.11+ range, but my resume on bold climbs is pretty good. When I think of climbs that have captured my imagination, it's always the bold, scary ones. Take away the boldness factor and climbing would be a lot more like tennis or something.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
in virtually any other sport if you can't jump the bar or hit Wes wrote: "...the pitch or sink the shot, who goes altering the venue so it better fits their skillset?
Sorry dude, it is absolutely different than any other sport. If you can't jump the bar, etc... they generally adjust it until you learn the skills necessary to advance. Unfortunately, you can't do that on real rock without screwing it up. Imagine a little league soccer game played on a full size court... now imagine if all the really good, inspiring flat playing surfaces had already been designed to be full size courts... what a way to help the sport along. Also, read the history of baseball, the changing distance of the pitching mound from the plate, etc... as skills changed, so did the rules.
Nope, you've missed the point again, Wes. In sports, if you can't do something, if you can't hang with a certain level of competition, you compete at a lower level till you have the skills, then you move up. You don't alter the highest level so you can get there sooner and with less effort. And when a certain sport changes the rules, it doesn't mean, say, that a single A ball player can suddenly play in the Major Leagues.
What you're sugesting is that there should be no division of expertise in climbing, even though levels of expertise exist in virtually every other sport. They do in climbing, too, but apparently you and Joe don't like them. It's a natural progression, Wes--if a certain runout route is too much for you, you work on less run out stuff till you have the skill and confidence, then you move up to the next level. There are no shortage of well protected climbs on which to slowly work up into the bolder stuff. You simply don't go alterning a bold route to increase your learning curve. You do as is done in any other sport--work into it through a persistent effort on easier stuff, of which there is plenty. If you're not of a mind to ever tic the bold stuff, accept it and move on--don't look to alter the route into your own image.
Like I said, Sportmanship.
And so far as adding bolts that other climbes can skip--this is foolishness. The bolts will simply bring the climb down to the level of those who don't want to accept the challenges set down by the first ascent. I personally think this ethic should only apply to high end routes. For instance, I've done 5.10a first ascents that were horrendously run out, and added bolts because otherwise no one would ever climb them. Ten Carrot is such a route--we added two bolts after the first ascent. But on the upper end stuff, it's a different story.
JL
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 4, 2006 - 01:09pm PT
|
"You're telling everyone not at your level to sack up at their level, without doing it yourself at yours."
Dude, that's a pretty f#cking bold assertion given who you're swapping bits with here...
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand, Man.....
|
|
{{{{{{{joe..... joe............. joe............ }}}}}}}}}}}
{{{{{{{{{come back............ back...................back.............}}}}}}}}}}}
You hear that echo? That is me yelling into your pussy.
Seriously Joe, you don't really believe all the stuff you are saying, do you? Do you act on these mad thoughts or are you just blowing smoke? A list of examples might be nice so I can turn the corner, hike up my bloomers, and go give some of them a try if they are easy enough.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Well, I've finally got the solution.
Steve Grossman addressed the problem of missing pin protection on Kevin's Welcome thread. Now I've got a plan for safer X and R rated slab climbing.
It's a special suit that will be modified with sticky rubber in the the key areas.
Problem solved, if you live through the first couple bounces, you're good to go.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
"5.12 climbers putting up 5.10 death routes"
Numbers are BS. 5.10 death routes ARE generally the province of 5.12 climbers. Or of very psychologically strong 5.10 climbers. And probably not the domain of most modern 5.14 sport climbers. Too much emphasis on the rating, not enough on the whole picture.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
Joe said: "5.12 climbers putting up 5.10 death routes is Major Leaguers competing at the single A level."
Now I know Joe, I've climbed with Joe (long after I officially quit being a serious climber) and respect Joe, so I'm not going to go off here. But the above statement basically shows the difference in our perspectives. From Joe's perspective, a "level" is determined solely by technical difficulty, by the decimal rating of the physical moves. From the "old-school" perspective, the "level" was both a combination of the physical and the mental. As mentioned earlier, elimination of the mental (sport climbing) factor, in terms of risk management, is a recent trend.
That much said, I doubt even Joe really expected us to "put our money where our mouth is" and start running out the rope on on-sight 5.12, which some of us could crank back then. The argument gets absurd--that the only justification for running the rope is if moves were at our absolute max, and that otherwise we were, in fact, lightweights. Fact is, I did that once in my life and never again. During the first free ascent of Paisano Overhang (5.12C), in 1973, we didn't have any nuts big enough to fit the crack except at the very start. Richard Harrison and I took turns rapping down the thing and trying to get a 4 inch steel bong to stay put out at the lip, but since the crack is strangely expanding, we'd drive the pin and it would suddenly shoot out. I finally just set one with 3 hammer blows, not nearly good enough to fall on but possibly good enough to lower off if I ever got out there and couldn't pull the roof. Anyhow, when I eventually went for it I knew if I blew out I was gonna get pancaked on that slab below and that's mostly why I made it, from fearing a broken back at the very least. So in fact I do know something about what Joe is
recommending here, but I would have had a very short climbing career had I done that much more than that one time.
JL
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
"How hard can you climb?"
and
"How hard can you climb impeccably?"
are two very different questions; the aesthetics of each type of experience are different.
The hardest thing I've ever seen a 5.12 climber do was a 5.10.
For some people, advancing the hardest level of climbing period is training for their real goal...advancing the hardest level that they can climb impeccably.
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
Joe, one of the magazine articles a bit back told of (I think) Justen Sjong bringing one of the ultra-hot-shot young sport climbers (forget his name, he had climbed 5.14+) up to work on freeing the Salathe. The kid fell off following 5.11- slab on the Freerider.
So - what were you saying about ratings again?
Maybe, just maybe, 5.12 slab requires greater technical skill than 5.15 overhang (although obviously far, far less strength)?
|
|
G_Gnome
Boulder climber
Sick Midget Land
|
|
Thank you Melissa. That is exactly the point isn't it? To judge a route and it's worthiness just by it's numerical grade only works for sport routes. Otherwise you had better take the larger picture into consideration or it's gonna get messy.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
The English grading system sometimes makes sense - a technical grading, plus an adjective to overall describe the route. Thus there can be extremely severe routes that aren't so technically hard (e.g. slab climbs), and technically hard but very safe routes (e.g. many "sport" climbs) that aren't considered so very severe.
The Tahquitz (Yosemite) Decimal System, which supposedly focusses on the technical difficulty of the hardest move on a pitch, and is naturally oriented to the areas it arose in, could be improved. The PG/R/X stuff helps, but is still a bit obscure - slab route are almost always in those categories, by definition. Maybe there should be an "S" added to denote that something is a slab climb, i.e. abandon all hope ye who climb here? A slippery slope.
I've always thought that slab climbing fostered precise footwork and body positioning, and strong nerves. Many such routes may be undergraded.
|
|
Broken
climber
Texas
|
|
Jerry Handren wrote: In the late 1980's I put up one of the early routes at Rumney, Flesh for Lulu."
Jerry -
I just want to salute you for a great route. Beautiful piece of rock and still one of the best 12a's I've ever done.
Out of curiosity, where were the two bolts? I figured that one was at the end of the 5.9+ first half and the other was somewhere on the headwall?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
"I tend to think from my own experience that the mental factor is negligible when climbing way below my own upper level."
Well, hell, Joe. You climb as least as well as we did 35 years ago so you shouldn't have any problem with the old run out routes, which indeed were physically below our upper limit, and surely are well below yours. And I'm all for replacing the old bolts with new ones--but not adding more. Start doing that and we'd have issues . . .
JL
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
That's a valid point, Joe, but remember, these routes--the very few we are talking about here--were never done much. I also think that the lack of traffic is at least partially due to the old bolts. For instance, Stoners was retrobolted and it gets donw quite a bit. Yeah, it's one of the easier ones, with just a touch of climbing over 10a, but you get the picture.
If someone replaced all the bolts on all the routes we've talked about here--from Space Babble to Greasy but Groovy to Black Primo and so on--it's hard to imagine that nobody would climb these routes. Moreover, what made those routes so chilling in the first place was climbing them in PAs or EBs. The new sticky rubber eliminates much of the fear factor because the boots outperform the old ones by miles.
It just strikes me as criminal to start adding bolts to the old classics. Everything eventually comes back into style. Maybe we have to wait a while till the focus returns, at least a little bit, to the old stuff.
JL
|
|
Greg Barnes
climber
|
|
We rebolted Stoner's - "retrobolted" usually means bolts were added, while "rebolted" usually means one-for-one replacement.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 4, 2006 - 06:03pm PT
|
"but it's a dead language no one speaks anymore because the authors refuse to allow them to be translated into something someone will read."
Unfortunately you'd be translating a "Ulysses" or "Crime and Punishment" into "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone "
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
When a ground-up climber starts up a route, he or she doesn't know what the moves will be like, and doesn't know where or whether it will be possible to drill. If the result is runout and scary, it is primarily because that is what nature dictated. The route is scary, not because the leader decided to create a route with injury or death potential, but because the level of risk is a natural phenomenon, not a human creation.
In sport climbing, the concept of embracing the risk dictated by the terrain is completely absent. Sport climbing only exists because those risks have typically been eliminated. The risk level is not determined by nature and then accepted by the climber, it is determined by the person who installs the bolts.
Because of this, I don't think there is any kind of valid comparison between runout traditional bolted routes, with danger an artifact of nature, and rap-bolted sport routes where danger is a human construction. Different standards ought to apply, and people should be careful, as they do not seem to me to be, to apply the appropriate standards to each activity.
I think traditionally established run-out routes should be left in their original state, because accepting the hand that nature has dealt and dealing with the consequences are at the heart of the traditional ethic. But rap-bolted sport routes are, to my mind, entirely human creations, and when someone purposely builds injury or death into a route, I think that makes them a sociopath at best. One cannot help but wonder what emotions such a person might (or ought to) experience if someone is severely hurt or killed on a section they deliberately created to be life-threatening.
To quote Greg, REbolting trad routes restores their original level of risk, and that is entirely appropriate to the nature of that activity. On the other hand, I think that RETRObolting a dangerous sport route is perfectly reasonable, because, in my opinion, whatever "ownership rights" the creator might have ought to be suspended as soon as he or she endeavors to hurt others.
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
Broken asked "Out of curiosity, where were the two bolts? I figured that one was at the end of the 5.9+ first half and the other was somewhere on the headwall?"
One just above the ledge, the second could be clipped when you were standing on that little shelf about 2/3 of the way up.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 4, 2006 - 10:05pm PT
|
"One cannot help but wonder what emotions such a person might (or ought to) experience if someone is severely hurt or killed on a section they deliberately created to be life-threatening."
That presupposes your average sport climber has the sack to actually launch from dogging on one bolt into the unknown without either visual confirmation or absolute knowledge of the location of a bolt soon to be close at hand. A bolt, I mean bold, assumption I suspect. Hell, just camo'ing bolts can provoke scowls. In fact, that brings up a whole other subject of how well camo'd should bolts be - there's quite a spectrum between invisible and solar powered, strobe bolts that turn off when you clip them only to turn on the next one ahead of you. But I suspect most sport climbers stop at the last bolt they can see unless they have a pretty damn good idea where the next one is.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Joe wrote
"..And there is, of course, no discernable difference between a dangerously bolted sport route and a runout trad one.
Always good when one of the most (if not the most) sage and articulate voices in a given subject backs you up 100%."
That's like saying there's no discernable difference between Aids that you got from a Male Hooker and Aid that you got from a blood transfusion. Yes and No. I bet your girlfriend would care.
So I'm betting RGold is going to give you less than %100.
peace
Karl
|
|
rgold
Trad climber
Poughkeepsie, NY
|
|
Um, Karl, he's indulging in a bit or irony here. And JG, its Richard Goldstone, not Richard Gold. I'm not clear on why the latter name is somehow associated with male prostitution, so I guess the former name may be just as susceptible. In any case, flattery will get you nowhere.
Anyway...uhhh...what he's basically saying is that the only justification for running it out instead of drilling is if you can't stop, which even I don't agree with completely.
Nope. Not what I'm saying.
Also I wonder if he realizes that what he might consider to be a dangerously bolted sport route is actually pretty safe due to the steepness, and that people take massive whippers on upper end sport routes all the time.
When I said "dangerous," I meant dangerous, not "actually pretty safe but apparently dangerous to someone with little knowledge and experience."
They even skip bolts, Realization at Ceuse commonly gets pointed on 4 bolts, the same number as on p2 of the B-Y...
This has nothing to do with anything I said, and the absurdity of juxtaposing the voluntary skipping of bolts on Realization, typically after making full use of them to wire the moves, with the situation demanded by B-Y has already, I think, been discussed on this site.
That said, it is hard to have a genuinely tidy philosophical stance when people insist bringing up inconvenient realities. I'm aware of a large number of objections one might make to what I said, based on this or that case, either real or hypothetical, and I momentarily considered a legalistic manifesto festooned with whereas's and however's, but I concluded that the basic distinction between
(1) a level of danger naturally imposed by the terrain in a context in which confronting the unknown includes unknown protection opportunities
(2) a level of danger consciously created for no other purpose than to have danger, in a context in which the conventional expectation is that danger has been eliminated
is a worthwhile distinction to keep in mind for some of these bolting arguments.
The unsurprising fact that so simple an articulation of general principles fails to address this or that particular situation is not enough, in my view, to repudiate the basic distinction.
And there is, of course, no discernable difference between a dangerously bolted sport route and a runout trad one.
This reminds me of a middle school joke, in which the jokester asks, "do you know how to tell the difference between a mailbox and an elephant's ass?"
When the target of the joke replies "no," the retort is,
"Well, I won't be giving you any letters to mail."
Metaphysically speaking, I think I'll stick to mailing my own letters here too.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
I’ve waded through both threads and could someone kindly answer two questions to which I have just not found the answer (I’ll admit that I may have missed it):
1) Where are the acres of rock being « used up » by these so called death routes – routes for which hordes would be lining up to climb if better bolted? Besides the DNB no routes where “hordes would be lining up if better bolted” have been listed. I know Hair raiser buttress has been mentioned in other threads, but that’s just one route. All other notoriously run out routes/areas seem frequented enough - Eldo, Tuolumne, etc. – that the apparent “run outness” does not seem to bother.
I’m a climber of very modest abilities and have climbed in California (mostly Northern with the exception of the Needles) fairly extensively and have never had a problem finding routes to climb.
2) Also, does a self proclaimed “5.8 climber” have some divine right to have all routes or pitches rated 5.8 be within his or her reach?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Overall, I think Joe's point is a pretty good one, but my guess is that many of these scary routes get done more than you think. There's lots of good climbers out there, and many of them don't toot their horn every time they do some scary testpiece.
I think Joe does underestimate how hard something, say, two grades below your limit really is. A route in the Black Canyon, the Flakes, comes to mind. It has a 5.9 chimney pitch, virtually unprotectable, that makes this a seldom done classic. There are lots of climbers who have done much harder routes in the Black that have not done this one. And it's only 5.9!
|
|
randomtask
climber
North fork, CA
|
|
Glad too see this getting resolved and not turn into a pissing contest. :)
-JR
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Joe wrote: And there is, of course, no discernable difference between a dangerously bolted sport route and a runout trad one.
There is a big difference and I think you know and understand the difference.
|
|
Murf
climber
|
|
All this talk of retro bolting always makes me feel like the world is being sanitized.
My climbing is defined as much by what I climb as what I do not climb.
There are routes I have not done because I am too scared.
There are routes that I have done that I am too scared to do again.
I like that... Actually, I need it.
Physical strength and technique is one measure of climbing. Another is the day when mind and body combine to make the impossible possible. If every route is mundane, how does one find any enchantment?
I stated this in the other thread as well. I haven't run out climbing to do. If anything, the list is growing longer. I haven't run out of FA's to do, if anything, the list grows longer.
Murf
|
|
Murf
climber
|
|
weschrist sez
Nice Russ. Let me know when someone fixes Ecstacy.
This is the route you want to base your "platform" on?
Wes, can I assume that you have contacted Herbert about the route, got his opinion on adding bolts?
From there, you've spoken to the active Bishop climbers about the status of the route, how most would feel about a bolt or two added? Of course, I can only assume that you've climbed every route in the Pratt's Crack area, including the ones that have gone up in the last couple of years.
I wonder if you put any of those new routes up? I mean, a major part of your issue is the fact that the "old dads" ( although Ecstacy is hardly old ) frittered away most of the good stone. How many good routes have gone up in Pratt's Crack Area in the last 5 years? How about up and down the canyon?
How is it when I look at Ecstacy I wonder about the day that I'll lead it, if ever ( most likely never )? You see a screwed up route, I see a future that is there for me if I want it enough. I could do it you know... really.
Murf
|
|
Murf
climber
|
|
Melissa sez
"How hard can you climb?"
and
"How hard can you climb impeccably?"
Very well said Melissa.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2011 - 11:41am PT
|
skating on stilts
|
|
| Messages 1 - 110 of total 110 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!